< Previous | Contents | Next >
PARISH MATTERS.
"The Servants of the Lord the King" and the Men of Tollerton—1342.
The parish officers of Tollerton, smarting under a wrong inflicted by certain “servants of the Lord the King,” and unable to obtain redress appealed to the Judge of Assize.
“Indictments made at Nottingham before Nicholas de Cantilupe and his colleagues Justices of the Lord the King to enquire concerning divers felonies and trespasses committed in co. Notts, by servants of the Lord the King and by others . . . on Monday after the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul the 15th year of the reign of King Edward III.
“The Jurors of the Inquest of Byngham present that John de Oxenford while he was Sheriff of Nottingham took from the township of Torlaton 2 quarters, 2 bushels of corn of the value of 10s. in the 10th year and paid nothing. And that Robert Adam deputy of Giles de Meignill the Sheriff took from the township of Torlaton for entertaining the horses of the Lord the King in co. Notts. 4 quarters of oats value 8s. in the 13th year and paid nothing.”
15 Edw. III. Assize Roll 691.
A Debt—1346.
Richard de Wylughby knight opposes himself against John Barry of Torlaston knight on the plea that he render to him forty pounds which he owes him and unjustly detains. John Barry does not come and the sheriff is ordered to have his body here in Easter Term.
De Banco Rolls.
A Pardon—1360.
Wm. de Bottesford of Torlaton has pardon of the King for the death of Hugh le Taillour of Torlaton, the justices having found that he killed him in self-defence.
Pat. Rolls 429.
House-Breaking—1363.
Henry Man1 of Thorlaston offered himself against Thomas Scot of Notingham concerning a plea why by force and arms he broke into the house of the said Henry at Notingham and took and carried away timber and other goods to the value of 40 shillings to his grave damage and against the King’s peace. The sheriff is ordered to cause him to be exacted and outlawed.
Coram Rege Rolls. Hilary 36 Edw. Ill m 13, Nottm.
A Pardon—1370 (Feb. 11).
Pardon at the request of Edward, Prince of Wales (the Black Prince) to Wm. atte Halle of Torlaton, having been outlawed for the death of Adam Valey of Torlaton.
Pat. Rolls. 371.
A Trespass—1377.
Henry de Watenowe of Torlaton puts in a plea of trespass against John Wright Byngham and Wm. Spenne. John is distrained but “Wm. Spenne is not found” and the sheriff is ordered to take him.
51 Edw. Ill K. B. 27/465. m. 16 d.
A Brawl—1389.
On Novr. 10th, 1389, William de Bolton and John de Aldenby formerly bailiffs of Nottingham appear before the Justices against Alan Chapman in the matter of a debt. It appears that “in time of autumn” in that year Alan had assaulted and “drew blood from one Richard Percatour2 of Torlaton against the peace.” The bailiffs came on the scene, and “enjoined the said Alan to wait in the Hall of Pleas of the liberty of the town of Nottingham,” and to stay there until he had paid 5s. 4d. “for the aforesaid blood, according to usage and custom.” Alan agreed to this, but promptly gave them the slip, left the town and concealed himself “because he would not pay them anything within the aforesaid feast of Saint Michael, and so they say that the said Alan owes them the aforesaid 5s. 4d.”
Since his return to Nottingham he had made repeated promises to pay, but had not done so.
Alan now says that he was not enjoined to wait in the Hall, and asks for an enquiry; but he is placed at the mercy of the Court, and held liable to the fine.
Nottm. Bor. Records I. 244.
At that time Nottingham had an eight day fair beginning on St. Matthew’s Day, September 21st, and Richard Percatour had evidently gone to the Goose Fair of those days, and taken home an unpleasant fairing as a result of his indiscretions.
Poaching—1390.
Robert Barry of Torlaston by his attorney prosecuted Richard Wright, Chaplain, for breaking into his close and houses at Torlaston and taking and carrying away 300 rabbits and other goods, and beating, wounding and maltreating his servants whereby he lost their service for a long time.
The sheriff is ordered to have him here within 15 days of St. Hilary.
De Banco Roll, 13 Rd. II. Mich. m. 538.
A Case of Murder—1391.
It happened at Torlaston on the Saturday before the feast of St. Barnabas the Apostle, the 14th year of the reign of Richard II (A.D. 1391) whereof an inquest was taken before Wm. de Leeke one of the Coroners of the lord the King of the County of Nottingham, on a view of the body of Wm. Rose of Torlaston by the oath of Richard Lovett et al. who say that a certain John Tropet of Torlaston on the day and year above said came into the fields of Torlaston and found there the said Wm. Roose with his animals in his herbage and demanded a pledge, and the aforesaid Wm. Roose delivered a pledge to him, so that a strife was moved between them, and they struck one another so that the aforesaid John struck the said Wm. with a stick of the value of one halfpenny upon the head, whereof he quickly died without the rites of the Church, the aforesaid John quickly after the doing of the felony fled, and he had goods and chattels there to the value of 10 marks3 and they are in the hands of Amice formerly wife of Wm. de Aslockton because he is nat. (? nativus—bondman) of the said Amice.
The jurors are Richard Lovett, Robert Aleyn, Wm. Slayman, John Coles, John Koc, John ?Colston, John Bertram, John Walleron, John son of Robert, John Watte, Wm. de Pynkeston, John Colyn.
Coroners Roll No. 125 m. 7.
A Debt—1403.
Richard de Marston by his attorney offered himself against Wm. Spicer of Notyngham concerning a plea that he together with John Leycestre of Notyngham sadeler John de Watnow of Torlaston, John de Styllyngflete and Wm. Wyger of Torlaston pay to him 10 marks which he owes to him and unjustly detains. He does not come and the sheriff is ordered to produce his body.
Chancery Proceedings. 4 Hen. IV. Hil.
A Trespass—1474.
Hugh Barry is plaintiff and Thomas Hawes4 of Torlaton husbandman defendant in a plea of trespass. For want of jurors the case is adjourned.
De Banco Roll. 14 Edw. IV. m. 377.
A counter plea was presented in which Hugh Barre of Torlaton was summoned to answer Thomas Hawes of Outhorp concerning a plea that he keep a covenant made between diem concerning a certain site of the manor house of the said Hugh at Torlaton with all the commodities namely in lands, meadows, pastures, and other profits pertaining to the same site demised to the same Thomas by the said Hugh for a term of years and now here at this day the said Thomas comes by Thomas Hunt5 his attorney and Hugh by Thomas Orston his attorney. And hereupon a day is given them until the morrow of the Ascension of the Lord. Thomas comes by his attorney but Hugh does not come.
Successive postponements are made.
De Banco Roll. Easter m. 387.
Two Cases of Trespass—1483.
William Grene by his attorney offered himself against John Sharp of Torlaton in co. Notts., husbandman concerning a plea why by force and arms he broke into the close of the said William -at Torlaton and depastured trampled down and consumed with his beasts his corn and grass to the value of 4 marks growing there, to his grave damage and against the King’s peace.
And he does not come and the sheriff was ordered to take him that he may be here within 15 days of Michaelmas.
Wm. Grene offers himself against Henry Pyght of Torlaton husbandman concerning a plea why by force and arms he chased six calves and two boars of the said Wm. with certain dogs, inciting them to bite the said calves and boars by which chasing and biting the calves and boars perished to his grave damage, they being of the value of 40s.
No appearance, and the sheriff is to have him here within 15 days of Michaelmas.
These cases were initiated in the nominal reign of Edw. V, and were carried forward into the next reign (Richard III). Both defendants evade the sheriff who reports “he is not found.” As they are to be pursued from County Court to County Court, this was but deferring the evil day.
These plea rolls have a special interest as belonging to the nominal reign of the boy king Edward V. who with his younger brother was, it is believed, murdered in the Tower. The initial P. of Placitum of the first roll is highly ornamental and contains a rose and the suggestive word “Emanuel,” and, at the foot of the first parchment sheet, are the words “thynk and thank God.” The words “thynk and thank” are written again in the initial C of the name of Justice Copley on the second roll.
A Case of Trespass—1500.
John Pyght by his attorney offered himself against Hugh Barry of Torlaton, gentilman concerning a plea why by force and arms he broke into the close of the said John at Torlaton and depastured his corn there now growing to the value of 40s. with certain beasts trod down and consumed.
And the sheriff now sends that he is distrained by his goods to the value of 40d.
John Pyght wins his case, but pence are given him instead of the shillings he claimed.
De Banco Roll. 15 Hen. 7. Trin.
A Case of Sheep Stealing—1587-8.
“ Examinations of Suspected Persons and Witnesses—1587-8.”
Robert Hydez of Nottingham, laborer, examined saith he delyvered no skinne nether wull to George Hydez in Lamley woodes; and yat he never solde eny mutton to Crukes wyffe. He also sayth he and Henry Alcocke went together to Kynnalton and there Alcocke was wylling to have a lamme or a wether, and in Tallerton feilde they took a wether and carryed hym into Gamston Moore and there they turned hym up agayne. Henry Alcocke of Nottingham laborer examined sayth he let ye shepe goe agayne yat he took in Clypston feelde and Roberte Hydez was in hys cumpanye, for he sayth hys conscyens charged hym not to carry hym any further, and so they let hym goe, beyng aboute V weekes agone.
The issue, whether liberty or the gallows, has not been reported.
Nottingham Borough Records, IV. 220.
A Case of Trespass—1639.
Richard Pendock gentleman comes by Walter Edge his attorney against Wm. Flower and complains that he in the 14th year of the lord Charles now King of England (1639), by force and arms broke into the close of the said Richard called Newclose at Tollerton and trod down his grass with his feet to the value of five pounds and depastured it with certain cattle viz. horses oxen cows pigs and sheep to the damage of the said Richard £10. William although solemnly exacted does not come. It is determined that Richard recover his damages and the sheriff Gilbert Neville Esqr. of Nottingham is ordered to enquire diligently what damage he has sustained.
An enquiry is held at the Shire Hall at Nottingham on May 7th in the 17th year and costs are assessed at £4 1. 4.
Coram Rege Roll. Hilary 16 Chas. I. m. 87.
The Value of a Cow—1650.
Philip Pendocke Esq. complains of Joseph Temple gentleman: being in the custody of the keepers of the liberty of England by authority of Parliament for that whereas the said Philip Pendock on Feb. 2nd, 1649 at Tollerton did sell unto the said Joseph one cowe of him the said Philip, Joseph did assume and promise to pay to Philip so much money as the cow was reasonably worth. Philip saith the cowe was reasonably worth £5, nevertheless Joseph fraudently intending craftily and subtilely to deceave and defraud the said £5 to Philip although on May 10th, 1650, at Tollerton required to pay it, hath always refused.
Joseph did not come when solemnly called, therefore it is. considered that Philip shall recover his damages. Therefore it is commanded to the sheriff of Notts that by the oath of good and lawful men of the bailiwick he enquire what damages Philip hath sustained etc.
Coram Rege Roll.
"Much Ado About Nothing."
Edward Holmes and Susanna his wife v. George Ward and Anne his wife.
Complayning sheweth unto your Lordships, the Lords Commyssioners for the Custody of the greate seale of England. Your orators Edward Holmes of London and Susanna his wife that whereas Anna Hicklyn late of Tollerton co. Notts, widow deceased mother of your oratrix was possessed of money and goods to the value of £500 and willed that they should come to your oratrix her only daughter she falling sick 16 years ago delivered them unto George Ward of Tollerton and Anne his wife her neighbours on whose friendship she much depended in trust that they should deliver the same to your oratrix at such time as she should be capable to manage them, but she did not know it for she was then an infant of very tender years and lived in the City of London by means whereof albeit she had notice of her mother’s death yet shee had not much providence or care to enquire how her said mother disposed of her estate. Until about 5 years ago she minded not the same. Then having accomplished the age of 21 she inter- marryed with your orator Edw. Hollmes who not long before had some notice of the trust reposed in the said George and Anne Ward for your oratrix. Whereupon your orators have made their addresses very often within these 4 or 5 yeares to Geo. and Anne Ward desiring them to deliver unto your orators the said money and goods whoe att the first promised soe to doe and excused themselves that they knew not how or where to send to your oratrix nor could they tell whether she were alive or not. Yet well knowing that the goods were delivered to them in private and so too the promise and that your orators cannot for want of proof recover them by the strict rules of law do deny that the said personal estate was delivered to them in trust for your oratrix. They ask for a writ of subpoena to Geo. and Anne Ward.
Who reply that they never received goods worth 20s. Sixteen years ago Thos. Hicklinge and Anne his wife, father and mother of the complainant Susannah then living in Tollerton and the said Thomas being very poor and much indebted Ann his wife did deliver unto Anne the defendant in trust for the use of the complainant Susanna then living in London and being under the age of 21 one piece of coarse lynnen cloth 23 yards in length which she at the earnest entreaty of the said Anne wife of Thos. Hicklinge did take into her custodie to the use of the said Susannah and about two years later Anne Hickling died and her husband fled out of England into Ireland not being able to pay his debts. Defendants sent word to Susanna that they had the piece of cloth and desired her to have it and Susanna replied that she wanted them to sell it for her benefit and pay the moneys arising thereof to one William Gill for her use. Anne sold it accordingly for 14s. 4d. and the 14s. 4d. was delivered to William Gill for Susanna’s benefit and he promised to deliver it to her and these defendants never doubted that he had done so until 10 years ago one George Fulwood in behalf of the complainant demanded the said moneys of George Ward alleging that Susanna had not received theme. Whereupon for avoiding of further trouble defendant did pay to his double charge other 14s. 4d. to Fulwood for the use of complainant although the said cloth did not in law belong to the said Susanna or to her mother but to Thomas Hicklinge so that the said Anne had no right to dispose the same to her daughter. Anne Hicklinge was never to his knowledge possessed of money and goods worth £500. They never received anything from her besides this piece of cloth and have twice paid its value.
Ch. B. and A. Bridges bdl. 7 No. 52.
1. A Henry Man held land in Huddelwong and Lingdale in Nottingham, 1302-3. Nottm. Bor. Rec., I, 178-180.
2. A Rd. Pergetour of Gryworth is mentioned in the Patent Rolls in 1494.
3. Villat de Torlaston, V de 10 Marc.
4. There was a Robt. Hawes of Wilford in 1458. N.B.R.
5. An attorney of Nottingham. N.B.R.