Lincolnshire Eyre, A.D. 1202

Pleas at Lincoln in the Fourth Year of the Reign of King John.

Wapentake of Candleshoe.

1 Richard, William's son, appealed Luke, Richard's son, and William, the servant of Alan Clerk, of robbery and of binding him. The appellees have not come nor essoined themselves. The county together with the wapentake says that they were appealed, not of the king's peace, but of the sheriff's peace, so that the suit was and is in the county [court], and therefore they were not attached to come before the justices. Therefore the jurors are in mercy for presenting what they ought not to have presented.

2 In the vill of Wainfleet the market is frequented on a day other than the accustomed day. The Prior of Kyme is lord of the vill and the market. It is granted by the justices on the king's behalf, that the market be on Tuesday, but so that it be not to the nuisance of neighbouring markets.

Wapentake of Calceworth

3 William, Hawise's son, appeals Richard, son of Robert of Somercotes, for that he came in the king's peace to his house at Somercotes, and broke his house and robbed him of...[an abrasion] shillings , and a cape and surcoat, and twenty-five fowls, and twenty shillingsworth of corn, and wounded him in the head with the wound that he shows; and this he offers to prove against him as the court shall consider etc.

And Richard comes and defends the breach of the king's peace and and the house-breaking, wounding and robbery, but confesses that he came to a certain house, which William asserts to be his [William's], as to his [Richard's] own proper house, which escheated into his hand on the death of Roger his villein, and there he took certain chattels which were his villein's and which on his villein's death were his [Richard's] own: to wit, five thraves of oats, thirteen sheaves of barley, and twenty-five fowls; and he offers the king twenty shillings for an inquest [to find] whether this be so or no.

And William says that Richard says this unjustly, for the said Roger never had that house nor dwelt therein, nor were those chattels Roger's, but he [William] held that house as his own, and the chattels there seized were his.

The jurors being questioned whether Roger did thus hold the house of Richard in villeinage, say, Yes. Also the coroners and the whole county testify that [William] never showed any wound until now; and the wound that he now shows is of recent date. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null, and let Richard go quit, and William be in mercy for his false claim. Pledges for the amercement, Gilbert, Robert's son, and Richard, Haldeng's son.

Township of Horncastle.

4 Astin of Wispington appeals Simon of Edlington, for that he wickedly and in the king's peace assaulted him in his meadows and put out his eye, so that he is maimed of that eye; and this he offers to prove etc.

Simon comes and defends all of it word by word. And the coroners and the county testify that hitherto the appeal has been duly sued, at first by [Astin's] wife, and then by [Astin himself].

Judgment: let law be made, and let it be in the election of the appellee whether he or Astin shall carry the iron. He has chosen that Astin shall carry it. Astin has waged the law. Simon's pledges, William of Land and his frankpledge and Ralph of Stures. Astin's pledges, Roger Thorpe, Osgot of Wispington, and William, Joel's brother. Afterwards came [the appellor and appellee] and both put themselves in mercy.

Wapentake of Well

5 Gilbert of Willingham appeals Gilbert, Geoffrey's son, for that he in the king's peace and wickedly set fire to his house and burned it, so that after the setting fire [the appellor] went forth and raised hue and cry so that his neighbours and teh township of Willingham came thither, and he showed them [the appellee] in flight and therefore they pursued him with the cry; and this he offers etc.

And the appelle defends all of it word by word etc. And the neighbours and the township of Willingham being questioned, say that they never saw him in flight, and that [the appellor] never showed him to them. Likewise the jurors say that in their belief he appeals him out of spite rather than for just cause. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null, and the appellee is in mercy for a half-mark. Pledge for the amercement, Robert Walo.

Wapentake of Lindsey.

6 William burel appeals Walter Morcock, for that he in the king's peace so struck and beat Margery, [William's] wife, that he killed the child in her womb, and besides this beat her and drew blood. And William of Manby, the bedell, testifies that he saw teh wound while fresh and the blood in the wapentake [court]. And the serjeant of the riding and the coroners and the twelve knights testify that they never saw wound nor blood. And so it is considered that the appeal is null, for one part of the appeal bein quashed, it is quashed altogether, and William Burel is in mercy. Let him be in custody. And William Manby is in mercy for false testimony. Pledges for William's amercement, Richard of Bilsby, Elias of Welton.

7Geoffrey of Hougham appeals Godard of Witham and Humfrey his brother for slaying Robert, [Geoffrey's] son; and this he offers to prove as one who is past [fighting] age and as of his own sight and hearing, if the court shall consider that he may deraign it. And the king's serjeant and the two knights who made view of the wounded man (who lived four weeks and a half after the wounding), testify that Robert said that Godard and Humphrey thus wounded him, and that should he get well, he would deraign this against them, and should he not, then he wished that his death might be imputed to them. And the jurors of the wapentake of Wraggoe where he was slain, on being asked, said that they suspect them of the said death. Afterwards came Geoffrey and withdrew himself and put himself in mercy. His amercement is one mark, for which Robert of Rasen is pledge.

Wapentake of Wraggoe

8 William Marshall fled for the death of Sigerid, Denis' mother, whereof Denis appeals him; and he was in the Prior of Sixhills' frank-pledge of Sixhills, which is in mercy, and his chattels were two cows and one bullock.

Afterwards came the Prior of Sixhills and undertook to have William to right before the justices. And he came, and then Denis, Sigerid's son, came and appealed him of his mother's death. And it was testified that [Denis] had an elder brother, and that nine years are past since [Sigerid] died, and that she lived almost a year after she was wounded, and that Denis never appealed [William] before now. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null and that Denis be in mercy. Pledge for the amercement, his father, Ralph, son of Denis.

Wapentake of Ness

9 Walter, Ralph's son, appeals Guy Wake, for that he in the king's peace wickedly slew William Guberant hi brother; and this he offers to prove as the court shall consider, as one who did not see the deed but suspects him on the testimony of others. The appeal is null; so let him be in mercy, and Guy (who defends all of it) be quit. Pledges for the amercement, Hugh, Alan's son, and William of Morton.

10 Alice, wife of Geoffrey of Carlby, appealed William, Roger's son, and William his son and Roger his son of the death of William her brother. And Alice does not prosecute. Therefore let her be in mercy and let her be arrested.

To judgment against the sheriff who did not imprison the said persons who were attached, whereas they are appealed of homicide, and to judgment also as to a writ which he ought to produce.

Wapentake of Boothby.

11 Peter Pollard appealed Simon of Waddington of [a breach of] the king's peace, and others as accessories. And Peter came and said that he only appealed them of the sheriff's peace. And the jurors and coroners testify that he made his appeal of the king's peace. Therefore be Peter in mercy. Pledge for the amercement, Adam of Newton.

Wapentake of Manley.

12 Hawise, Thurstan's daughter, appeals Walter of Croxby and William Miller of the death of her father and of a wound given to herself. And she has a husband, Robert Franchenay, who will not stir in the matter. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null, for a woman has no appeal against anyone save for the death of her husband or for rape. And let Robert be in mercy on his wife's account, for a half-mark, and let the appellees be quit. Pledge for Robert's amercement, Richard Dean of Mareham, who has lay property.

Wapentake of Threo.

13 William Trig appeals Robert of Welby, for that he in the king's peace and in robbery took from him 39 shillings and 10 1/2 pence and a gold ring of the chattels of his lord, and this he offers etc. And Robert defends all etc. It is considered that the appeal is null, for that in his appeal he makes no mention of his own proper chattels robbed from him, but only on another's chattels. And so be William in mercy.

Wapentake of Aswardhurn.

14 Juliana of Creeton appeals Adam of Merle of battery and robbery. And Adam does not come, but essoins himself as being in the king's service beyond seas. And for that it is not allowed to anyone appealed of the king's peace to leave the land without a warrant before he has been before justices learned in the law, his pledges are in mercy: to wit, Segar of Arceles, Alan of Renington, and Robert of Searby. Adam himself is excused from the plea by the essoin that he has cast.

15 Hugh of Ruperes appeals John of Ashby, for that he in the king's peace and wickedly came into his meadows and depastured them with his cattle, and this he offers etc. And John comes and defends all of it. And whereas it was testified by the sheriff and the coroners, that in the first instance [Hugh] had appealed John of depasturing his meadows and of beating his men, and now wishes to pursue his appeal, not as regards his men, but only as regards his meadows, and whereas an appeal for depasturing meadows does not appertain to the crown of our lord the king, it is considered that the appeal is null, and so let Hugh be in mercy and John be quit. Hugh is in custody, for he cannot find pledges.

16 andrew of East Retington, who appealed Robert Pilate of the king's peace, to wit of a wound given him, does not prosecute. Let Andrew be in mercy, and his pledge likewise: to wit, Richard Norris. And let Pilate and those charged as accessories go without day.

To judgment against Michael, the serjeant of Marston, for going to the consultation of the twelve jurors, who were asked whether any plea had been holden in the wapentake touching the levying of hue and cry after the said Robert Pilate by the frank-pledge of Theobald Hautein, and whether his frank-pledge was summoned to the wapentake to answer touching this matter, and thereupon said that [the frank-pledge] was summoned and that the plea was holden in manner aforesaid. 17 Thomas, Leofwin's son, appeals Alan Harvester, for that he in the king's peace assaulted him as he went on the highway, and with his force carried him into Alan's house, and struck him on the arm so that he broke a small bone of his arm, whereby he is maimed, and robbed him of his cape and his knife, and held him while Eimma, [Alan's] wife, cut off one of his testicles and Ralph Pilate the other, and when he was thus dismembered and ill-treated, the said Alan with his force carried him back into the road, whereupon as soon as might be he raised the cry, and the neighbours came to the cry, and saw him thus ill-treated, and then at once he sent to the king's serjeant, who came and found, so [Thomas] says, the robbed things in Alan's house and then as soon as might be [Thomas] went to the wapentake [court] and to the county [court] and showed all this.

So inquiry is made of the king's sergeant, who testifies that he came to Alan's house and there found the knife and the testicles in a little cup, but found not the cape. Also the whole county testifies that [Thomas] never before now appealed Alan of breaking a bone. And so it is considered that the appeal is null, and that [Thomas] be in mercy, and that the other appellees be quit.

Thomas also appeals Emma, Alan's wife, for that she in the peace aforesaid after he was placed in her lord's house cut off one of his testicles.

He also appeals Ralph Pilate, for that he cut off the other of his testicles.

Wapentake of Graffoe.

18 The twelve jurors presented in their verdict that Austin, Rumfar's son, appealed Ralph Gille of the death of his brother, so that [Ralph] fled, and that William, Rumfar's son, appealed Benet Carter of the same death, and Ranulf, Ralph's son, appealed Hugh of Hyckham of the same death and Baldwin of Elsham and Ralph Hoth and Colegrim as accessories. And the coroners by their rolls testify this also. But the county records otherwise, namely, that the said Ralph Gille, Benet, Hugh, Baldwin, Ralph [Hoth] aand Gocegrim were all appealed by Ranulf, Ralph's son, and by no one else, so that four of them, to wit, Ralph Gille, Hugh, Benet and Colegrim, were outlawed at the suit of the said Ranulf, and that the said persons were not appealed by anyone other than the said Ranulf. And for that the county could not [be heard to] contradict the coroners and the said jurors who have said their say upon oath, it is considered etc. Thereupon the county forestalled the judgment and before judgment was pronounced made fine with 200 pounds [to be collected throughout the county], franchises excepted.

Wapentake of Walshcroft

19 Ranulf, son of Richard of Saxelby, appeals Alan, Aldane's son, for that he in the king's peace and wickedly slew [Ranulf's] father Richard, and this he offers to deraign etc., but he does not assert that he saw the deed. And being asked how long has elapsed since his father was slain, he says eighteen years, but he was then within age and he made his appeal for the first time before Hugh Bardolf. And the twelve jurors being asked if they suspect Alan of the said death, say that they do not. And Alan comes and defends all of it etc., and craves that it be allowed in his favour that the justices have been in the parts of Lincoln several times since Richard was slain, and [Ranulf] never made his appeal before them. It is considered that the appeal is null. So let Alan be quit and Ranulf in mercy. Pledges for the amercement Robert of Owmby and Simon of Saxby.

Wapentake of Kirton.

20 Cristiana, who was the wife of William, John's son, appealed Ralph, Agge's son, and Richard his brotehr of the death of her husband, so that Ralph was taken and put in gaol, and there (so the sheriff says) he died. But the jurors say that after he was put in gaol they saw him going about the country.

And Richard comes and says that on a former occasion before Geoffrey FitzPeter, Cristiana withdrew from her suit and released him, Richard. And the whole county records that this was so and that she was put in gaol because she would not prosecute and afterwards made fine for her amercement with one mark, which is already paid at the Exchequer. But Cristiana says that she never withdrew from her suit. Therefore it is considered that both Richard and Cristiana be under good pledges until the counsel fo Sir Geoffrey FitzPeter be had upon this matter.

21 Hereward, William's son, appeals Walter, Hugh's son, for that he in the king's peace assaulted him and wounded him in the arm with an iron fork and gave him another wound in the head; and this he offers to prove by his body as the court shall conisder. And Walter defends all of it by his body. And it is testified by the coroners and by the whole county that Hereward showed his wounds at the proper time and has made sufficient suit. Therefore it is considered that there be battle. Walter's pledges, Peter of Gosberton church, and Richard Hereward's son. Hereward's pledges, William his father and the Prior of Pinchbeck. Let them come armed in the quindene of St. Swithin at Leicester.

Wapentake of Skirbeck

22 William Gering appeals William Cook of imprisonment, to wit, that he with his force in the king's peace and wickedly, while [Gering] was in the service of his lord Guy at the forge, took him and led him to Freiston to the house of William Longchamp, and there kept him in prison so that his lord could not get him replevied; and this he offers to prove as the court shall consider.

And William Cook comes and defends the felony and imprisonment, but confesses that whereas he had sent his lrd's servants to seize the beasts of the said Guy on account of a certain amercement which [Guy] had incurred in the court of [Cook's] lord [Longchamp], and which though often summoned he had refused to pay, [Gering] came and rescued the beasts that had been seized and wounded a servant of [Cook's] lord, who had been sent to seize them, whereupon [Cook] arrested [Gering] until he should find pledges to stand to right touching both the wounding and the rescue, and when [Gering's] lord [Guy] came for him, [Cook] offered to let him be replevied, but this [Guy] refused, and afterwards he repeated the offer before the king's serjeant, but even then it was refused, and then [Cook] let [Gering] go without taking security.

And Guy says that he puts himself upon the wapentake, whether the imprisonment took place in manner aforesaid, and whether he [Guy] at once showed the matter to the king's serjeant, or no. And William Cook does the same. And the wapentake says that the alleged [imprisonment] took place in Lent, and Guy did not show the matter to the wapentake until a fortnight before St. Botulph's day. And the county toghether with the coroners says that they never heard the suit in their court. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null, and Guy is in mercy. And let William and those who are appealed as accessories go quit.

23 Sefrid, son of Reginald Cote, was arrested because it was said of him that he tallaged ships which came through the marsh, and he was replevied by Richard Bacun, John, Jordan's son, and Reginald Cote. And after his replevin he shaved his crown and made him a tonsure like a clerk's. But this was not his condition when he was delivered to his pledges, as is testified by Richard of Camville who delivered him [to his pledges] and by others. Afterwards his pledges came and confessed that while he was in their plevin he had his crown shaved, and they put themselves in mercy.

This text was taken from:
Maitland, F. W. Select Pleas of the Crown: Volume 1--A.D. 1200-1225. London: Bernard Quartich, 1888.

The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at the Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.

© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 15 November 2024 [CV]