Part 27

21. 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 neighbors and the 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 appellee defends all of it word by word etc. And the neighbors 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 [7s.]. Pledge for the amercement, Robert Walo.

22. 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 beadle, testifies that he saw the 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 being 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.

23. William Marshall fled for the death of Sigerid, Denis' mother, whereof Denis appeals him; and he was in the Prior of Sixhills' frankpledge 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.

24. 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.

25. 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 [7s.], and let the appellees be quit. Pledge for Robert's amercement, Richard Dean of Mareham, who has lay property. Wapentake of Aswardhurn.

26. 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.

27. 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 neighbors 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.

28. 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 and 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 [4,000s.] [to be collected throughout the county], franchises excepted.

29. 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 consider. 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.

30. 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 lord's servants to seize the beasts of the said Guy on account of a certain amercement which 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 arrested [Gering] until he should find pledges to stand to right touching both the wounding and the rescue, and when [Gering's] lord came for him, offered to let him be replevied, but this refused, and afterwards he repeated the offer before the king's serjeant, but even then it was refused, and then 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 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 together 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.

31. The jurors say that Andrew, sureman's son, appealed Peter, Leofwin's son, Thomas Squire and William Oildene of robbery. And he does not prosecute. So he and Stephen Despine and Baldwin Long are in mercy, and the appellees go without day. Afterwards comes Andrew and says that [the appellees] imprisoned him by the order of William Malesoures in the said William's house, so that he sent to the sheriff that the sheriff might deliver him, whereupon the sheriff sent his serjeant and others thither, who on coming there found him imprisoned and delivered him and he produces witnesses, to wit, Nicholas Portehors and Hugh, Thurkill's son, who testify that they found him imprisoned, and he vouches the sheriff to warrant this. And the sheriff, on being questioned, says that in truth he sent thither four lawful men with the serjeant on a complaint made by Nicholas Portehors on Andrew's behalf. And those who were sent thither by the sheriff testify that they found him at liberty and disporting himself in William's house. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null [and Andrew is in mercy] for his false complaint and Nicholas Portehors and Hugh, Thurkill's son, are in mercy for false testimony. Andrew and Hugh are to be in custody until they have found pledges [for their amercement].

32. The jurors say that Geoffrey Cardun has levied new customs other than he ought and other than have been usual, to wit, in taking from every cart crossing his land at Winwick with eels, one stick of eels, and from a cart with greenfish, one greenfish, and from a cart with salmon, half a salmon, and from a cart with herrings, five herrings, whereas he ought to take no custom for anything save for salt crossing his land, to wit, for a cartload, one bole of salt, and in that case the salter ought to have a loaf in return for the salt, and also if the salter's cart breaks down, the salter's horses ought to have pasture on Geoffrey's land without challenge while he repairs his cart. And Geoffrey comes and confesses that he takes the said customs, and ought to take them, for he and his ancestors have taken them from the conquest of England, and he puts himself on the grand assize of our lord the king, and craves that a recognition be made whether he ought to take those customs or no. And afterwards he offers the king twenty shillings that this action may be put before Sir Geoffrey FitzPeter [the Justiciar]. Pledge for the twenty shillings, Richard of Hinton.

33. The jurors say that Hugh, son of Walter Priest, was outlawed for the death of Roger Rombald at the suit of Robert Rombald, and afterwards returned under the [protection of the] king's writ, and afterwards was outlawed for the same death on the appeal of Geoffrey, Thurstan's son. The county therefore is asked by what warrant they outlawed the same man twice for the same death, and says that of a truth in King Richard's time the said Hugh was outlawed at the suit of one Lucy, sister of the said Roger, so that for a long time afterwards he hid himself; and at length he came into the county [court] and produced letters of Sir Geoffrey FitzPeter in the form following: "G. FitzPeter etc. to the sheriff of Northamptonshire, greeting, Know thou that the king hath pardoned to Hugh, son of the priest of Grafton, his flight and the outlawry adjudged to him for the death of a certain slain man, and hath signified to us by his letters that we be aiding to the said Hugh in reestablishing the peace between him and the kinsfolk of the slain; wherefore we command thee that thou be aiding to the said Hugh in making the peace aforesaid, and do us to wit by thy letters under seal what thou hast done in this matter, since we are bound to signify the same to the king. In witness etc. by the king's writ from beyond seas." And the said letters being read in full county [court] the county told the said Hugh that he must find pledges that he would be in the king's peace, and he went away to find pledges, and afterwards did not appear. But the kinsfolk of the slain, having heard that Hugh had returned after his outlawry, came to the next county [court] and Robert Rombald produced Geoffrey, Thurstan's son, who said that if he saw the said Hugh he would sue against him the death of the said Roger, who was [his kinsman]. And the county showed him how Hugh had brought the Justiciar's letters pardoning him the flight and outlawry, and that he was to find pledges to stand to the king's peace, but had not returned. Whereupon the king's serjeant was ordered to seek Hugh and bring him to a later county [court]. And at a later county [court] Geoffrey offered himself against Hugh, and Hugh did not appear; whereupon the king's serjeant being questioned said that he had not found him, and the county advised [Geoffrey] to come to another county [court], because if in the meantime Hugh could be found, he would be brought to the county [court]. Then at the third county [court] the said Geoffrey offered himself, and it was testified by the serjeant that Hugh had not yet been found, wherefore the county said that as Hugh would not appear to the king's peace, he must bear the wolf's head as he had done before. To judgment against the coroners and the twelve jurors.

34. Robert of Herthale, arrested for having in self-defense slain Roger, Swein's son, who had slain five men in a fit of madness, is committed to the sheriff that he may be in custody as before, for the king must be consulted about this matter. The chattels of him who killed the five men were worth two shillings, for which Richard [the sheriff must account].

35. Sibil, Engelard's daughter, appeals Ralph of Sandford, for that he in the king's peace and wickedly and in breach of the peace given to her in the county [court] by the sheriff, came to the house of her lord [or husband] and broke her chests and carried off the chattels, and so treated her that he slew the child that was living in her womb. Afterwards she came and said that they had made a compromise and she withdrew herself, for they have agreed that Ralph shall satisfy her for the loss of the chattels upon the view and by the appraisement of lawful men; and Ralph has assented to this.

36. William Pipin slew William [or John] Guldeneman and fled. He had no chattels. Let him be exacted. And Hugh Fuller was taken for this death and put in gaol because the said John [or William] was slain in his house. And Hugh gives to the king his chattels which were taken with him, that he may have an inquest [to find] whether he be guilty thereof or no. The jurors say that he is not guilty, and so let him go quit thereof. And William Picot is in mercy for having sold Hugh's chattels before he was convicted of the death, and for having sold them at an undervalue, for he sold them, as he says, for three shillings, and the jurors say that they were worth seventeen shillings, for which William Picot and those who were his fellows ought to account. And William says that the chattels were sold by the advice of his fellows, and his fellows deny this.

37. Robert White slew Walter of Hugeford and fled. The jurors say that he was outlawed for the death, and the county and the coroners say that he was not outlawed, because no one sued against him. And because the jurors cannot [be heard to] contradict the county and the coroners, therefore they are in mercy, and let Robert be exacted. His chattels were [worth] fifteen shillings, for which R. of Ambresleigh, the sheriff, must account.

38. Elyas of Lilleshall fled to church for the death of a woman slain at Lilleshall. He had no chattels. He confessed the death and abjured the realm. Alice Crithecreche and Eva of Lilleshall and Aldith and Mabel, Geoffrey and Robert of Lilleshall, and Peter of Hopton were taken for the death of the said woman slain at Lilleshall. And Alice, at once after the death, fled to the county of Stafford with some of the chattels of the slain, so it is said, and was taken in that county and brought back into Shropshire and there, as the king's serjeant and many knights and lawful men of the county testify, in their presence she said, that at night she heard a tumult in the house of the slain; whereupon she came to the door and looked in, and saw through the middle of the doorway four men in the house, and they came out and caught her, and threatened to kill her unless she would conceal them; and so they gave her the pelf [booty] that she had. And when she came before the [itinerant] justices she denied all this. Therefore she has deserved death, but by way of dispensation [the sentence is mitigated, so] let her eyes be torn out. The others are not suspected, therefore let them be under pledges.

39. William, John's son, appeals Walter, son of Ralph Hose, for that when [William's] lord Guy of Shawbury and [William] had come from attending the pleas of our lord the king in the county court of Shropshire, there came five men in the forest of Haughmond and there in the king's peace and wickedly assaulted his lord Guy, and so that [Walter], who was the fourth among those five, wounded Guy and was accessory with the others in force as aid so that Guy his lord was killed, and after having wounded his lord he [Walter] came to William and held him so that he could not aid his lord; and this he offers to deraign [determine by personal combat] against him as the court shall consider. And Walter comes and defends all of it word by word as the court etc. It is considered that there be battle [combat] between them. The battle [combat] is waged. Day is given them, at Oxford on the morrow of the octave of All Saints, and then let them come armed. And Ralph [Walter's father] gives the king a half-mark that he may have the custody of his son, [for which sum] the pledges are John of Knighton and Reiner of Acton, and he is committed to the custody of Ralph Hose, Reiner of Acton, John of Knighton, Reginald of Leigh, Adam of Mcuklestone, William of Bromley, Stephen of Ackleton, Eudo of Mark.

40. Robert, son of Robert of Ferrers, appeals Ranulf of Tattesworth, for that he came into Robert's garden and wickedly and in the king's peace assaulted Robert's man Roger, and beat and wounded him so that his life was despaired of, and robbed him [Roger?] of a cloak, a sword, a bow and arrows: and the said Roger offers to prove this by his body as the court shall consider. And Ranulf comes and defends the whole of it, word by word, and offers the king one mark of silver that he may have an inquest of lawful knights [to say] whether he be guilty thereof or no. Also he says that Roger has never until now appealed him of this, and prays that this be allowed in his favor. [Ranulf's] offering is accepted. The jurors say that in truth there was some quarrel between Robert's gardener, Osmund, and some footboys, but Ranulf was not there, and they do not suspect him of any robbery or any tort done to Robert or to Osmund. Also the county records that the knights who on Robert's complaint were sent to view Osmund's wounds found him unwounded and found no one else complaining, and that Robert in his plaint spoke of Osmund his gardener and never of Roger, and that Roger never came to the county [court] to make this appeal. Therefore it is considered that Ranulf be quit, and Robert and Roger in mercy. Pledge for Ranulf's mark, Philip of Draycot. Pledges for the amercement, Henry of Hungerhill, and Richard Meverell. Pledge for Roger, the said Robert.

41. One L. is suspected by the jurors of being present when Reinild of Hemchurch was slain, and of having aided and counseled her death. And she defends. Therefore let her purge herself by the ordeal of iron; but as she is ill, the ordeal is respited until her recovery.

42. Andrew of Burwarton is suspected by the jurors of the death of one Hervey, for that he concealed himself because of that death. Therefore let him purge himself by ordeal of water.

43. Godith, formerly wife of Walter Palmer, appeals Richard of Stonall, for that he in the king's peace wickedly and by night with his force came to her house and bound her and her husband, and afterwards slew the said Walter her husband; and this she offers to prove against him as wife of the slain as the court shall consider. And he defends all of it. And the jurors and the whole neighborhood suspect him of that death. And so it is considered that he purge himself by ordeal of iron for he has elected to bear the iron.

44. The jurors of Oflow hundred say that the bailiffs of Tamworth have unjustly taken toll from the knights of Staffordshire, to wit, for their oxen and other beasts. And the men of Lichfield complain that likewise they have taken toll from them, more especially in Staffordshire. And the bailiffs deny that they take anything from the knights in Staffordshire. And for that they cannot [be heard to] contradict the jurors, the bailiffs are in mercy. As to the men of Lichfield, [the Tamworth bailiffs] say that they ought to have, and in King Henry's time had, toll of them, more especially of the merchants, as well in Staffordshire as in Warwickshire. And the burgesses of Lichfield offer the king a half-mark for an inquest by the county. And the county records that in King Henry's time the men of Lichfield did not pay toll in Staffordshire. Therefore the bailiffs are in mercy.

- - - Chapter 7 - - -

- The Times 1215-1272 -

Baron landholders' semi-fortified stone manor houses were improved and extended. Many had been licensed to be embattled or crenelated [wall indented at top with shooting spaces]. They were usually quadrangular around a central courtyard. The central and largest room was the hall, where people ate and slept. If the hall was on the first floor, the fire might be at a hearth in the middle of the floor. Sometimes the lord had his own chamber, with a sleeping loft above it. Having a second floor necessitated a fireplace in the wall so the smoke could go up two floors to the roof. Other rooms each had a fireplace. Often the hall was on the second floor and took up two stories. There was a fireplace on one wall of the bottom story. There were small windows around the top story and on the inside of the courtyard. They were usually covered with oiled paper. Windows of large houses were of opaque glass supplied by a glassmaking craft. The glass was thick, uneven, distorted, and greenish in color. The walls were plastered. The floor was wood with some carpets. Roofs were timbered with horizontal beams. Many roofs had tiles supplied by the tile craft, which baked the tiles in kilns or over an open fire. Because of the hazard of fire, the kitchen was often a separate building, with a covered way connecting it to the hall. It had one or two open fires in fireplaces, and ovens. Sometimes there was a separate room for a dairy.

Furniture included heavy wood armchairs for the lord and lady, stools, benches, trestle tables, chests, and cupboards. Outside was an enclosed garden with cabbages, peas, beans, beetroots, onions, garlic, leeks, lettuce, watercress, hops, herbs, nut trees for oil, some flowers, and a fish pond and well. Bees were kept for their honey.