A Plea Roll of Edward I’s Army in Scotland, 1296

scotlandA Plea Roll of Edward I’s Army in Scotland, 1296

Edited by Cynthia J. Neville

From: Miscellany of the Scottish History Society, vol. XI (1990)

The following record, classified in the Public Record Office, London, as E39/93/15 is an army plea roll that details nearly twp hundred offences allegedly committed by members of the English expeditionary force which occupied Scotland between late March and mid-September 1296. 

Click here to read Professor Neville’s Introduction to this text.

Pleas of the king’s army at Wark on Wednesday next after Palm Sunday in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [21 March 1296].

1. William de Whittinghame was attached by John de Wigton knight at Dalton, and sent to prison, because it was said that he was a Scottish spy, and that he withdrew from the country where he held lands in order to avoid serving in the king’s army against the Scots. And [it was said] that he is of the affinity of John `Red’ Comyn, the enemy of the king of England. William comes and says at the suit of the king that he is not guilty and he puts himself [on the country]. The jurors say on oath that he is a good and loyal man, and is is no wise guilty of the offences with which he is charged. Therefore [he is] acquitted. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 189.]

2. Alice de Wooler, Thomas de Lung and John Andreu de Prestfen bring a suit of robbery against John de Thwayt, Richard de Hocclyve, Matthew de Kyklor and John de Sutton. Alice and the others have not prosecuted. Therefore she and her sureties for prosecuting, namely William le Rus and Robert le Espernor, [are] in mercy. The others are acquitted of their suit. At the suit of the king they say that they are not guilty and they put themselves [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that john and the others are in no wise guilty. Therefore [they are] acquitted.
(amercement 12 pence)

Pleas of the king’s army at Berwick on Wednesday next after the Sunday following Easter,
in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [4 April 1296] .

3. Matthew de Redman knight acknowledges that he owes to John son of Marmaduke knight, £10, to be paid at the feast of Whitsun 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 de 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 Kohn] Wake.
(amercement pardoned)

6. John de Kellowden and Robert de Neketon bring a suit against John de Thetbotle, of the company of Walter de Huntercumbe. 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 Segrave.
(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 10 shillings’ 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 calls to warranty. And because he does not have John he is sent to prison.

Concerning the bread he now says that he is in 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 shillings.
(amercement 2 shillings, paid)

10. Ralph de 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 de 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 12 pence)

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 12 pence)

13. Richerus de Laverton, Thomas de Galloway, William Robyn, Nicholas Welifed, John de Schelden and Adam de Kirkby [are] in mercy because they refused to obey Robert de Hoperton their centenar, namely for 3 shillings, which they paid immediately.
(amercement 3 shillings, paid)

14. Walter Scot was attached to answer Maud de Blackburnshire on a plea of trespass. Whereon she complains that Walter illegally took from her a cloak, value 4 shillings, and still withholds it to her great damage etc. Walter comes and says that he did not take any cloak from Maud as she says. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Maud. The jurors say on their oath that Walter took the cloak from Maud. Therefore it is considered that Maud should recover the cloak or its value, 2 shillings 6 pence, and damages of 6 pence. Walter is condemned to prison until etc.
(amercement 20 pence)

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 12 pence.
(amercement 12 pence)

17. Richard le Taillur centenar of the rnilleraariiirrl of Henry de Braylesford made a fine of 1 mark for himself and his hundred [men] for a trespass committed, because he failed to perform watch and ward.
(1 mark 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 6 pence. [The amercement is] paid.
(amercement 6 pence, paid)

19. John de Smetheton, 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 40 shillings 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 3 shillings.
(amercement 3 shillings, 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 warranty. Robert comes and vouches John to warranty. He further calls Ralph Stedeman the servant of Robert de Kirkton, who comes and vouches John to warranty. He [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 Hathethorn 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 20 pence.
(amercement 20 pence, paid)

22. John de 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 de 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 le Flemeng 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 40 pence, paid)

25. Peter de 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 de Dunwich senior, clerk.
(amercement pardoned)

26. Concerning Robert de Nottingham, for a trespass done to Thomas de Stotville, [who is] in mercy for 6 pence.

27. John Bochard brings a suit against Thomas de Derby. Later they are agreed. Thomas puts himself [on the country] and has made a fine of 6 pence.
(amercement 6 pence, paid)

28. Nicholas de Oxford and Gillotus the tailor were attached to answer Ralph de Bloyou knight in a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Nicholas and Gilotus illegally ejected him from a shop. Nicholas and Gillotus come and say that they came into [possession of] the shop through Ingram de Gynes, whom they call to warranty. Ingram comes and vouches them to warranty. Later they are agreed by licence. Ralph puts himself [on the country. [The amercement is] pardoned by J. de Segrave.
(amercement pardoned)

More of the pleas [heard] at Berwick.

29. Germanus de Broxfeld 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 4 shillings 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 their 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 one half mark. He puts himself [on the country]. [The amercement is] pardoned at the instance of John de Bitterlegh.
(amercement pardoned)

32. John du Boys was attached to answer John de Fenton on a plea of trespass. John was mainprised by Henry de Grentford, and does not come. Therefore he and his manucaptor [are] in mercy. Stephen the marshal is ordered to attach Henry and the other. Because they are from the king’s household nothing more is done.

33. William de Rateford, centenar in the rnillenariwn 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 12 pence, paid)

34. William the armourer of London acknowledges that he is indebted to John le Fauconer knight for one mark, to be paid before Sunday next. William [is] in mercy.
(amercement 12 pence, paid)

35. Roger de Stapelford brings a suit against William Prymerole. Later they are agreed by licence. William puts himself [on the country].
(amercement 6 pence, paid)

36. Roger le Pertricur brings a suit against Simon Prymerole. Later they are agreed by licence. Simon puts himself [on the country].
(amercement 6 pence, paid)

37. Alan the 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 their oath that Alan neither took nor led away a horse as [Richard] complains, but rather that he bought the horse in the market. Thereofre 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 Lawrence de 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, value 8 marks, at the gate next to the [house of the] Friars Minors, 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 40 shillings, 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. Lawrence 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 Whitsun, at the prayer 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 2 shillings, paid)

40. Walter de Hetherslaw son of William de Crookham was attached on suspicion 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 Huntercumbe on the latter’s mainprise until etc. Walter de Hetherslaw says that he is a good and loyal man, and he puts himself [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that he is not a spy, but a good and loyal man. Therefore [he is] acquitted.
(surety; acquitted)

41. John the 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 the cook [is] acquitted. John Sampson [is] in mercy.
(amercement)

42. Thomas Michel acknowledges that he owes to Adam de Mohaut 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.
(recognisance)

43. William le Fraunceis, 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 12 pence.
(amercement 12 pence, 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 servant, on Friday of Easter Week [30 March].

Gregory comes and says that 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 has not prosecuted, therefore he [is] in mercy. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 189. ]
(amercement)

45. Maud de Blackburnshire was attached to answer Walter Scot on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when he delivered to Maud a red surcoat of mixed cloth to sell, value 3 shillings, Maud did not satisfy him either for the surcoat or for its price, to Walter’s damage etc.

Maud 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. Maud does not come. Therefore it is considered that she be distrained to hear judgment on the case, and again she does not come. Therefore it is considered that Walter should recover the surcoat and Maud [is] in mercy.
(Stephen the marshal will render 2 shillings 6 pence of the value of the surcoat and 6 pence amercement)

Pleas of the king’s army at Roxburgh on Thursday next after the feast of the Ascension in the king’s 24th year [10 May 1296].

46. Hugh de Scalton brings a suit against Adam de Hamerton. Adam has not come and is attached by the marshal. Therefore he [is] in mercy. It is ordered that he be taken.
(firstly)

47. Richard le Seler and Margery his wife bring a suit against Robert le White of Scotland. Whereupon the bishop of Durham testifies through Brian FitzAlan that the deed was done before the making of peace in Roxburgh, so that he [Robert] should not be required to answer for it. Therefore it is considered that Richard and Margery should recover nothing. Robert is acquitted.
(no amercement)

48. Adam de Hamerton was attached to answer Hugh de Scalton on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that while Adam surrendered to Hugh 50 shillings of money received in the Wardrobe to pay his foot soldiers and Hugh gave back the 50 shillings to Adam to safeguard for him, Adam now illegally withholds them, to Hugh’s serious damage etc. Thereon he brings suit.

Adam comes and says that after he handed over the 50 shillings to Hugh he never received them back. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Hugh.

The jurors come and say on their oath that Adam received the money from Hugh in a pouch marked with Hugh’s seal, but they do not know whether there were more or less than 50 shillings contained therein. But they say that Adam gave the pouch to John de Croxton knight to safeguard for him. Later John produced the pouch in open court, marked with Hugh’s seal, as the jurors said. Therefore it is considered that Hugh should recover the money. Adam is condemned to prison until etc. [He makes a] fine of 4 shillings.
(amercement 4 shillings)

49. Geoffrey de Rocresheye was attached to answer Ely the smith and William de Acton on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence in the following manner, namely that Geoffrey is to pay 70 shillings immediately to Ely and William. Geoffrey [is] in mercy. His surety for mercy [is] Sir John de Hotham.
(amercement 12 pence)

50. William de Lodelawe was attached to answer William de Lucy, John de le Rous and Henry de Brecon on a plea of trespass. Whereon they complain that while they formed a company for plundering the king’s enemies in Scotland and came to a manor where they found a red horse worth 10 marks, William de Lodelawe took the horse for himself and led it away on his own and did not satisfy William, John and Henry for any of the share [of the horse] pertaining to them, to their damage etc. William comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that the horse was so weak that he did not bother to lead it away with him. He asks for enquiry to be made. William, John and Henry say that William led away the horse and thereby did as he wished, as they say above. They also ask for enquiry to be made. Therefore [the sheriff] is ordered etc. Later William and the others have not prosecuted. Therefore [they are] in mercy. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 189. ]
(amercement 2 shillings)

51. Michael de Roxburgh clerk was attached to answer Walter de Stobton on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Michael came to his lodgings and broke the door of his chamber, to Walter’s damage etc. Michael comes and acknowledges the deed. Therefore he is condemned to prison. [The amercement is] pardoned at the instance of Sir Hugh de Lowther. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 189. ]
(amercement pardoned)

52. Germanus de Broxfeld was attached to answer William de Barsam on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that while he bought from Germanus 104 ewes, value 34 shillings 8 pence, and paid the money to Germanus, the latter did not make delivery of the ewes, and illegally withholds them and the money, to William’s serious damage etc.

Germanus comes and denies force and injury etc. He says that when he and certain others bought the sheep from an unknown company of men, William approached them and offered them a profit on the sale, that is a money profit for each ewe that they in turn sold to him. He says that if William paid money to anyone he paid it to the principal vendor [the company] and not to him [Germanus], because he was originally assigned to take delivery of the ewes. He says that he never received any of the said money except 2 shillings 6 pence, and this by the hands of the principal vendor as his share of the profit. He is prepared to prove this and he asks for enquiry to be made. William says that he bought the ewes from Germanus and that he paid the money to him and no one else. He asks for enquiry to be made. Later William comes to open court and withdraws [his suit] in contempt of court. Therefore it is considered that Germanus is acquitted. William and his sureties for prosecuting [are] in mercy.
(inquest; amercement 12 pence)

53. Geoffrey the chaplain of Roxburgh was attached to answer John de Newcastle, chaplain, on a plea of debt. Whereon he complains that Geoffrey illegally withholds one half mark which he owed him, to his damage etc. Geoffrey is unable to deny this, but rather acknowledges it. Therefore it is considered that John should recover the half mark. Geoffrey [is] in mercy.
(amercement 12 pence, paid)

54. John de Cantelou was attached to answer Henry de Percy on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence. Henry puts himself [on the country]. [The amercement is] pardoned by the marshal.
(amercement pardoned)

55. John the warrener was attached to answer Peter de Kertham the man of William de Ros on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when on Monday in Whitsun Week [14 May] John procured from him 6 sheeps’ carcasses each worth 15 pence and `vas due to pay him the money, he took and carried off three of the carcasses and paid nothing for them, to Peter’s damage etc.

John comes and denies force and injury when etc. He denies absolutely that on the said day and year he took from Peter or carried off any carcasses or that he did him any damage as the latter charges. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Peter. Therefore [the sheriff] is ordered etc. Later Peter has not prosecuted. Therefore [he is] in mercy.
(amercement 1? pence)

56. John le Husser was attached to answer Adam de Haveriton on a plea of trespass. Whereon Adam complains that when his servant gave John a surcoat, a pair of linen garments, a pair of hose and a pair of shoes to bring to Adam, John gave him only the surcoat and illegally withholds the remaining things, to Adam’s damage etc.

John comes and says that he received nothing from the servant except the surcoat, which he surrendered to Adam as the latter acknowledges. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Adam. Later they are agreed by licence. John puts himself [on the country].
(amercement 8 pence)

More of the pleas [heard] at Roxburgh.

57. Hugh Thorold was attached to answer Robert de Bamburgh in a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Wednesday before Whitsun [9 May] Hugh illegally seized him, falsely imprisoned him, attached 119 of his sheep and wilfully drove them off, to Robert’s damage of 40 shillings and more. Thereon he brings suit. Hugh comes and denies force and injury when etc. He readily acknowledges the imprisonment and says that it was done at the suit of one Nigel de Greenlaw, the man of Earl Patrick. Nigel charged Robert with seizing the sheep maliciously from land that was at peace, whereon Hugh, acting as the marshal’s bailiff, sought to attach him. When Robert refused to justify himself or to find sureties Hugh imprisoned him, as was his duty. With respect to the sheep, he answers and readily acknowledges that he attached them, and that he delivered them for safekeeping to unknown men of Robert’s company etc.

Robert says with respect to the imprisonment that Hugh never required sureties of him as he charges. He puts himself on the country, as does Hugh. [The sheriff] is ordered etc to summon etc. [The case is] adjourned until the arrival of the king. Robert prays judgment with respect to the sheep, inasmuch as Hugh readily acknowledges that he seized them and that he wilfully drove them off. He asks that [his claim to them] not be prejudiced by the means in which, or the person by whom, they were delivered to Hugh. He prays judgment, as does Hugh. They have a day until Monday after the octaves of Whitsun [21 May], on which day Hugh does not come. Therefore it is considered that Hugh be distrained to hear judgment against him, and once again he does not come. Therefore it is considered that Robert should recover the sheep against Hugh. Hugh [is] in mercy. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 189. ]
(judgment; no amercement)

58. William de Bockele was attached to answer Walter le Poure on a plea that when on Thursday before Whitsun [10 May] Walter surrendered his animals to William for safekeeping, the following night William alienated seven cows, value 30 shillings, from the animals, to Walter’s damage etc.

William comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he alienated no cows from the animals as Walter charges. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Walter. Therefore [the sheriff] is ordered etc.

The jurors say on their oath that William did not alienate the cows as he is charged. Therefore [he is] acquitted. Walter [is] in mercy.
(amercement 12 pence)

59. Nicholas son of William de Ripon was attached to answer Adam de Thorthweyt on a plea that when on Sunday after the feast of the Ascension of the Lord [6 May] Adam came to Haddington on a foray and came to a house next to the friars’ enclosure, he found inside their close, in a bowl, two pouches containing £30,which money Nicholas took by force from him and carried off, to Adam’s grave damage of 40 shillings and against the peace etc. Nicholas comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he did not take or carry off any money from Adam, as the latter charges. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Adam. Therefore [the sheriff] is ordered etc. The jurors say on their oath that Nicholas did not take any money from Adam. Therefore it is considered that Nicholas is acquitted. Adam [is] in mercy. [The amercement is] pardoned by the marshal at the instance of John Gichard.
(amercement pardoned)

60. Roger Hirdman of Corbridge was attached to answer William the tailor of the same place and William de Tyndale on a plea that while there was an agreement among them that they would all faithfully share the booty they won in the army and William and William gave Roger malt to brew, Roger brewed the malt and twice sold it for a profit of 6 marks, which he kept for himself. He refused to share the money with William and William in violation of their agreement, and to their damage etc.

Roger comes and denies force and injury when etc, and says that he never made any such agreement. He asks for enquiry to be made, as do William and William. The jurors say on their oath that an agreement was made, but that Roger made a profit once of 3 shillings and at another time of 40 shillings. Therefore it is considered that William and William should recover against Roger the share pertaining to them of the aforesaid 43 shillings. Roger [is] in mercy.
(amercement 40 pence)

61. William de Brampton was attached to answer the marshal of the king’s army. He comes and puts himself in the marshal’s mercy by surety of Walter le Poure and William de la Grene.
(one half)

62. Roger de Bribour was attached to answer John le Fleming on a plea that when on Whit Sunday [13 May] John put his horse in a pasture near Roxburgh, he later found the horse in the custody of Roger. He requested its return but Roger refused to surrender the horse and illegally withholds it still, to John’s damage etc. Roger comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he bought the horse in good faith with his own money in the market in Roxburgh a long time before that Sunday, nearly one week before, and he is ready to prove the fact by a jury of good men. John says that he owned the horse for an entire year before that Sunday. Later Roger came and returned the horse to John in open court. Therefore it is considered that John should recover his damages, assessed at 2 shillings. Roger [is] in mercy.
(amercement 12 pence)

63. Robert de St Paul was attached to answer Alan FitzWarin knight on a plea of illegally withholding a horse. Later they agree by licence to submit themselves to arbitration.

64. William son of Mynne was attached to answer Thomas de Fishburn and Adam de Rue on a plea of trespass. Thomas and Adam have not prosecuted, therefore [they are] in mercy. [Their] surety [is] William de Haukswell.
(amercement 2 shillings)

65. William de Ercelden was attached to answer Adam le Mouner. Later they are agreed by licence. William puts himself [on the country].
(amercement 6 pence)

66. Walter le Poure appoints John de Staynton as his attorney against Owen de Montgomery and Adam Carbonnel in a plea of trespass etc.
(attorney)

67. William de Neville, Walter le Poure [and] John Martel presented themselves against Owen de Montgomery. Owen does not come. Therefore his sureties Ralph de Grendon and John de Grendon [are] in mercy.
(amercement 4 shillings)

68. Christine de Tottenham and Christine de London were attached by Robert the gaoler to answer Agnes the laundress on a plea of trespass. Whereon she complains that on Tuesday next after the feast of the Trinity [22 May] Christine and Christine came to the town of Roxburgh, seized her and wounded her and carried off goods of hers worth 20 shillings, to Agnes’s damage of one half mark and against the peace.

Christine and Christine come and deny force and injury when etc. They say that they did not come there on that day, nor did they wound Agnes or carry off her goods. They are ready to prove this on the country, as is Agnes. Later they are agreed by licence. Agnes puts herself [on the country].
(amercement 6 pence)

69. Simon de Criketot was attached to answer Robert de Escores on a plea of trespass, regarding which plea he had licence to make an agreement, saving to the marshal his right. They have submitted themselves to the arbitration of William Talemasch and Thomas de Hauville.

70. Lambert de Burgh was attached to answer William de Swylington on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Lambert sold to Thomas Trussebut his bailiff, for William’s use, 600 ewes each worth 3 pence, for which Thomas paid Lambert 20 shillings in silver as a downpayment until he should be satisfied for the balance. Thomas then asked for the release of the ewes, which Lambert refused. He still withholds illegally the 20 shillings, to William’s damage etc. Lambert comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that Thomas never bought the ewes from him for William’s use, nor did he receive 20 shillings from Thomas as William says. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does W[illiam]. In the meantime Lambert has died.
(no amercement)

71. Ralph de Toggesden was attached to answer Llewellyn ap Ythel on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Tuesday next after the feast of the holy Trinity [22 May] Ralph came [and] illegally took from him a sword worth 4 shillings and a cloak worth 2 shillings 6 pence and carried them off, to Llewellyn’s grave damage and against the peace etc. Ralph comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he bought the cloak in the king’s market in Roxburgh and that he did not acquire it by malicious means. He asks for enquiry to be made.

With respect to the sword, he says that he did not take it or carry it off from Llewellyn as the latter charges. He asks for inquiry to be made, as does Llewellyn. Therefore [the sheriff] is ordered etc. Later Llewellyn presented himself in court and Ralph did not come. Therefore he and his sureties, namely John son of Richard de Ednam and John his own son, [are] in mercy.
(amercement 2 shillings)

72. Owen le Engleys and Thomas Stragan were attached to answer Master Elyas de Heton on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence. Master Elyas puts himself [on the country] by surety of Sir Robert de Engles.
(amercement 40 pence, paid)

73. William de Beyrmor was attached to answer John Gichard on a plea that William illegally withholds from John 5 shillings, to his damage etc.

William comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that John made an agreement with him that he would reserve his houses and goods in Roxburgh for William’s use when the king arrived there. He says that John failed to hold to the agreement, and he asks for enquiry to be made. John says that he held to the agreement in all respects and also asks for enquiry to be made. The jurors say on their oath that John held to the agreement. Therefore it is considered that John should recover the 5 shillings against William and also his damages, which are assessed at 2 shillings. William [is] in mercy.
(damages 100; amercement 12 pence)

74. Owen de Montgomery was attached to answer William de Neville, John Martel [and] Walter le Poure on a plea that when William and the others, together with Owen, pooled their spoils of war, then on the Friday next before Whitsun [11 May] sold the goods to the king’s treasurer for £110, O[wen] received 100 marks from that sum. While O[wen], Sir Theobald de Neville and Adam Carbonnel were assigned by the company to distribute to each man the share pertaining to him, O[wen] distributed to William and the others only £8 of the said £110 and illegally withholds the residue, to their damage etc.

Owen comes and denies force and injury when etc. He prays judgment whether he is required to answer William and the others, inasmuch as the latter acknowledges that there were many men charged with distributing [the money], but they asked only him, and no others, to hand over the entire sum. It is considered that O[wen] is acquitted. William and the others [are] in mercy.
(amercement 3 shillings)

75. Walter Clerk of Roxburgh was attached to answer Roger de Lindsay chaplain on a plea that whereas Walter was indebted to Roger for 9 marks of silver less 4 shillings and was to pay him the money at Whitsun last [13 May], he has not done so. Whereby he says that he has been wronged and has suffered damage etc. Walter comes and denies force and injury when etc. He prays judgment whether he is required to answer Roger in this court for a contract made before the arrival of the king. Later Walter brought a writ of the steward. Thus the suit has been adjourned.
(returned by writ of the steward)

76. Concerning Nicholas de Heyttlestham, for licence to make an agreement with John the servant of Roger de Somerville, 6 pence.
(amercement 6 pence, paid)

77. John the servant of Walter de Stirton was attached to answer Nicholas the chaplain of the Maisondieu of Roxburgh on a plea of trespass. Nicholas has not prosecuted, therefore [he is] in mercy. [The amercement is] pardoned by the marshal at the instance of Humphrey de Bohun.
(amercement pardoned)

More of the pleas of the army [heard] at Roxburgh.

78. Walter de Trilleyk was attached to answer William de Fauconberge on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Walter illegally withholds from him 8 shillings, which he loaned to Walter on Saturday next before the Ascension of the Lord in the king’s 24th year [28 April 1296], and which Walter was to repay on the following Sunday. He has not yet done so, whereby William has suffered damage etc. Walter comes and denies force and injury etc. He prays judgment whether he is required to answer William, inasmuch as the latter has shown neither a written record nor a tally regarding the debt. William says that the suit he has brought is good. And inasmuch as no answer is given to his suit he too prays judgment. It is considered that William should recover 8 shillings against Walter, and Walter [is] in mercy. [The amerceinent is] pardoned at the instance of Sir Robert Peverel, brother of the treasurer, on behalf of the constable.
(amercement pardoned)

79. Adam Carbonnel was attached to answer Saer de Huntingfield. Saer has not prosecuted. Therefore he and his sureties for prosecuting [are] in mercy.
(amercement 2 shillings, pardoned)

80. Owen de Montgomery was attached to answer Walter le Poure and John Martel on a plea that when Walter and John, together with Owen and other persons, pooled their spoils of war and then on Friday next before Whitsun [11 May] sold the goods to Thomas de Neville the attorney of the king’s treasurer for £110 of silver, O[wen] received 100 marks of the silver for the use of their fellowship. He distributed only £4 to Walter and John, their share of 60 of the marks, but their share of the [remaining] 40 marks he illegally withholds, to [their] damage etc.

Owen comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that one Adam Carbonnel was a co-distributor of the money with him, and lie requests the latter’s help. Adam is advised and they have a day on the following Wednesday. On this day Adam came but Owen did not. Therefore he is to be distrained. They had another day on the following Friday, on which day the parties came. At the request of the parties another day was given two days hence. On this day Walter and John presented themselves but Owen did not come. Therefore it is ordered that he be distrained in his person etc.
(amercement 2 shillings)

81. John Gichard was attached to answer William de Beyrmor. John does not come. Therefore his sureties [are] in mercy. [The amercement is] pardoned by W. de Haukeswell. Later they are agreed by licence. William puts himself [on the country].
(amercement 12 pence)

82. John de Grendon was attached to answer Augustine Peverel on a plea that when Augustine surrendered some animals to him for safekeeping, John alienated 5 oxen and 4 cows from the animals and permitted them to be so alienated, to Augustine’s damage etc. John comes and denies force and injury when etc, and strongly denies that he alienated the animals or permitted their alienation. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Augustine.

The jurors say on their oath that John did not alienate the oxen and cows, nor were they alienated while in his safekeeping. Therefore it is considered that John is acquitted. Augustine [is] in mercy. [The amercement is] pardoned at the instance of J. de la Huse.
(amercement pardoned)

83. Henry de Donboyne was attached to answer Reginald Leance on a plea that on Wednesday next after the octaves of Trinity [30 May], Henry came to the town of Roxburgh and assaulted Reginald and wounded him in the head and the arm with a sword, to his damage etc. Henry is present and acknowledges the deed. Therefore he is condemned to prison until etc, and [makes] a fine of 12 pence.
(amercement 12 pence)

84. Robert Scot was attached to answer John Clerk the attorney of Richard de Whiteacre on a plea that
(r’)

85. Augustine the mercer of Roxburgh and Agnes his wife were attached to answer Alan de Peniton on a plea that when Augustine and Agnes beseeched Alan to stand surety for their son Richard, who was detained in prison in Berwick, and faithfully promised that they would in turn stand surety for Alan before the king in return for this mainprise, Alan duly stood surety for Richard and secured his release from prison. But the mainprise which they owed him in return according to their promise and to the agreement made between them they do not now wish to perform, so that he has been wronged and has suffered damage etc. Thereon he brings suit.

Augustine and Agnes come and deny force and injury when etc, and say that they never made any such agreement with Alan. They ask for enquiry to be made, as does Alan. Therefore [the sheriff] is ordered etc that he summon etc.

Later Alan presented himself and Augustine and Agnes have not come. Therefore it is considered that their sureties, namely John de Kellaw of Roxburgh and Richard the porter of the same place, [are] in mercy etc. [The sheriff] is ordered etc that Augustine and Agnes be attached in their persons. Later they are agreed by licence. Augustine makes a fine of one half mark for himself and his sureties. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 189.]
(amercement one half mark)

Pleas of gaol delivery at Roxburgh on Thursday in Whitsun Week in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [17 May 1296].

86. Thomas de Croft, Robert de Alverton, Nicholas de Greenway, William Spaner, Henry Stalgu and Robert le Bole were attached because they took and with force carried away from a woman beer and milk, value one half mark. Charged with this by the marshal they say that they are in no wise guilty of the deed, and put themselves on the country. The jurors say on their oath that Thomas and the others are in no wise guilty of the deed. Therefore [they are] acquitted.
(acquitted)

87. Hugh de Overton, John the smith [and] Hugh de Wylingdon were attached for the robbery of a tunic. Charged with this they say that they were pursuing the king’s enemies when one of them threw away a tunic worth 1 penny halfpenny. They took the tunic in this way and did not acquire it by any other means. They put themselves on the country.

The jurors say on their oath that Hugh and the others took the tunic in the manner they describe and not otherwise. Therefore [they are] acquitted.
(acquitted)

88. John de Fymer was attached for the firing of a grange. Charged with this he says that he is not guilty and he puts himself on the country. The jurors say on their oath that John is a good and loyal man and that he is not guilty of the firing. Therefore [he is] acquitted.
(acquitted)

89. John de Salton and John the porter, Scots, were attached and charged by the marshal with being spies of the Scottish king and enemies of the [English] king. John and John say that they are not guilty of the charge and they put themselves on the country. The jurors say on their oath that they are not guilty. Therefore [they are] acquitted.
(acquitted)

90. Thomas de Lovenne [Lothian?] and Hugh son of Robert were attached at the suit of Adam the goldsmith of Roxburgh. Adam, who is present, is asked whether he wishes to say anything against Thomas and Hugh and he says not. Therefore Thomas and Hugh [are] acquitted.
(acquitted)

91. John de Pocklington, attached at the suit of John de Minton, presented himself against the said John de Minton his centenar. It is attested that the latter is in the king’s service at Jedburgh. Therefore John [is] acquitted until John de Minton shall come.
(acquitted)

92. William the leather-dresser of Newcastle [was] taken and detained in prison. No one sues William, therefore [he is] acquitted.
(acquitted)

93. Aymer de Rotherford brings suit against the marshal for two horses, value 10 shillings, attached by the marshal. No one claims them or sues for them. Therefore it is considered that Aymer should recover the horses. He is acquitted. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 189.]
(acquitted)

94. Robert de Shocton, Thomas de Trickelawe, Alan de Meldon and Diota de Hexham [were] attached and charged with numerous larcenies, robberies, arsons, homicides and other misdeeds. Asked how they wish to plead they say that they are good and loyal persons and are in no wise guilty, and they put themselves on the country. The jurors say on their oath that Robert, Thomas, Alan and Diota are good and loyal persons and that they are in no wise guilty of any of the charges laid against them. Therefore [they are] acquitted.
(acquitted)

95. Patrick de Whittinghame, William de Senton and Robert de Maxton, Scots, [were] attached for numerous larcenies, robberies, homicides and other misdeeds. Charged with these they say that they are good and loyal men and are in no wise guilty of any of the charges laid against them. The jurors say on their oath that they are good and loyal men. Therefore [they are] acquitted.
(acquitted)

96. Robert de Ercelden and John the hermit [were] attached at the suit of Henry the forester and William de Sutton, and charged by the latter with despoiling them on Saturday next before the feast of the holy Trinity [19 May]. The jurors say on their oath that they are are not guilty. Therefore [they are] acquitted. [CDS, ii, no. 822, pp. 189-90. ]
(acquitted)

97. Richard de Gateshead was attached to answer Cynwrig ap David on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when on Thursday next after the octaves of Trinity [31 May] he came into the king’s road in the town of Roxburgh, Richard came and with premeditated assault attacked him and wounded him in the head with an axe, to his grave damage of £20, and against the peace etc. Richard comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he did not come [there] nor did he assault or wound Cynwrig as the latter charged. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Cynwrig. Later Cynwrig has not prosecuted, therefore [he is] in mercy.
(amercement 2 shillings)

98. William the carpenter of Cotingham was attached to answer Richard de Swynburn on a plea of robbery. Whereon he complains that on Tuesday in Whitsun week [15 May] William came to the court of William de Beyrmor near the water in the town of Roxburgh and took and furtively led away from there a mare, value 20 shillings, and a saddle, value 4 shillings, to Richard’s damage etc. Richard [sic] comes and denies force and injury when etc. With respect to the saddle he says that he bought it in the king’s market for 12 pence. As to the mare, he did not take it or lead it away as the other charges. He asks for inquiry to be made, as does Richard. The jurors say on their oath that William bought the saddle in the king’s market and did not acquire it by malicious means. With respect to the mare they say that he is in no wise guilty, therefore [he is] acquitted. Richard [is] in mercy. [The amercement is] pardoned by the marshal at the instance of Kohn] de Swynburn.
(amercement pardoned)

99. Elias the shepherd, Adam son of Thomas, Thomas son of Eustace, Robert de Coppenhop, Adam Russel, William Wyly [and] William son of Robert [were] attached and imprisoned. Charged at the suit of the king with setting fire to churches [and] houses in England and with numerous robberies and larcenies, they say that they are not guilty of any burning or larceny and put themselves [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that Elias and all the others are guilty of the burning of churches and houses, as well as of the numerous larcenies with which they are charged. Therefore [they are] to be hanged. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 190.]
(to be hanged)

100. Nigel de Grillawe was attached at the suit of the king by the marshal and charged with numerous larcenies and other misdeeds. He says that he is a good and loyal man and is in no wise guilty of any of the charges, and he puts himself [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that he is a good and loyal man. Therefore [he is] acquitted.
(acquitted)

101. Walter de Wiltshire vintner, John de Berdeshey, Robert Cook of Tyrewell and Geoffrey de Wylindon vintners were attached for regrating and forestalling flour and other victuals. Charged with these [offences] they are unable to deny them. Therefore [they are sent] to prison until etc and [make] a fine of 40 pence.
(amercement 40 pence, paid)

102. Stephen Erl and Simon de Thorn, in the viriterzaritrrri of Geoffrey le Spitele, in the constabulary of John de Mens, were attached for the same. They are unable to deny it. Therefore [they are] sent to prison until etc and [make] a fine of 12 pence.
(amercement 12 pence, paid)

103. William de Etringham, attached for the same, is unable to deny it. Therefore [he is sent] to prison etc [and makes] a fine of 6 pence.
(amercement 6 pence, paid)

Gaol delivery at Edinburgh and pleas of the king’s army in the same place on Tuesday next after the feast of St Barnabas in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward (12 June 1296).

104. Robert de Castello and John de Morpeth were attached for fighting. They are agreed outwith the court. Therefore [they make a fine] etc, for which R. Clarel answers.
(fine 2 shillings)

105. Henry the servant of Richard Burnel was attached for fighting, at the suit of Walter de Stretton his brother. They are agreed, therefore [they make a fine] etc, for which R[obert] the gaoler answers.
(fine 2 shillings)

106. Robert de Heleswith and Richard de Burford are attached for fighting. They are agreed, therefore [they make a fine], for which R[obert] the gaoler answers.
(fine 2 shillings)

107. Henry Bay was attached at the suit of the king for taking a cloak from an unknown man and for the slaughter of the man. Henry puts himself on the jurors for good and ill. Therefore etc. The jurors say that he is not guilty, therefore [he is] acquitted.
(acquitted)

108. A day is given to Griffin Crakeyl and his fellows, the men of the earl of Hereford, plaintiffs on the one part, and Warin de Staundon and other men of Nicholas de Audley, defendants on the other part, on the following day at the request of the parties. Later they are agreed by licence. Broyl de Turberville puts himself [on the country]. The sureties for amercement [are] Griffin ap Rees and Howel ap Eynon, men of the earl of Hereford. [The amercement is] pardoned at the instance of Sir Gilbert de Bohun.
(at the request of the parties)

109. Cynwrig ap Madog [and] Iorwerth ap Owen were charged at the suit of the king with a homicide done at Jedburgh, [namely] for killing one of their fellows, a Welshman. They say that they are not guilty and put themselves [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that they are not guilty. Therefore they are acquitted.
(acquitted)

110. William de Halole brings a suit against Thomas de Werworth that he illegally took and led away his horse.

111. Therenard Barth was charged by the king because he slew the Welshman Enyon Vathan. He puts himself [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that he killed Enyon feloniously. They say that [he has] no chattels.
(to be hanged; no chattels)

112. Thomas Brenel was attached at the suit of Richard de Hereford. [An adjournment] was sought at the request of the parties, and they were agreed. Richard put himself in mercy. Robert the gaoler answers [for it].
(amercement 12 pence)

113. David ap Cynwrig was attached at the suit of Henry de Lancaster. Whereon he complains that on Friday next before the feast of St Barnabas the apostle [8 June] David took a horse of his from the field in Edinburgh, against the king’s peace, to Henry’s grave damage of one half mark. David comes and denies force, injury and damage etc. He says that he bought the horse at Carlisle, at the time when the Welshmen came to Scotland. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Henry. Therefore [the matter is put] to an inquest. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 190.]
(inquest)

Gaol delivery at Stirling on Tuesday next before the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [19 June 1296].

114. William de Lonesdale was taken because he broke prison at Ross’. When asked how he escaped from prison William answers that he left by the open door because of lack of food and went to Scotland. Asked if in Scotland he came to the peace of the king of England, he says no. Therefore etc. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 190.]
(to be hanged)

115. Thomas the chaplain of Edinburgh was attached because he excommunicated the lord king of England publicly with bell and candle. He confesses before the marshal that he did this in contempt of the king. Therefore [he is] at the king’s will. The same for Richard Gulle, because he rang the bell in contempt of the king. Later they are delivered to the archdeacon of Lothian by command of the king. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 190.]
(delivered)

116. Thomas de Wooler was attached by the treasurer because he was a vintenar and refused to come to the king’s muster. He was put to peine forte et dtire, then released as acquitted. Therefore etc.
(acquitted)

117. lorwerth Walt is attached at the suit of Ralph son of Ralph for the death of a man. His sureties for prosecuting [are] William Athelston and Roger le Hayward.

Gaol delivery at Clunie on Thursday the eve of [the feast of] the apostles Peter and Paul in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [28 June 1296].

118. William de Chester [was] attached because he was found [keeping watch?] at night. Charged with being a spy he says that he is not guilty and puts himself on the country. The jurors say on their oath that he is a good and loyal man and is not guilty. Therefore [he is] acquitted.
(acquitted)

119. Iorwerth the Welshman [was] attached at the suit of the king for the death of one William son of John. Charged with this he says that he is not guilty of the death of William and puts himself on the country.

The jurors say on their oath that Iorwerth is not guilty of the death of William. Therefore [he is] acquitted.
(acquitted)

120. John de Chatton was attached to answer William de Durham on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that John illegally withholds from him a sword which he found in John’s keeping, to his damage etc. John says that he bought the sword in the king’s market in Perth. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does William. The jurors say on their oath that John bought the sword in the king’s market as he said. Therefore it is considered that William should recover the sword. John, because he [also] bought the sword, is acquitted.
(acquitted)

121. Ralph de Ireland was attached to answer john Lovel on a plea that when John came to Edinburgh to settle the dispute between the Welsh and the English, Ralph came and wounded John’s destrier under him, to his damage etc. Ralph comes and denies force and injury when etc, and says that he did not wound John’s destrier. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does John. The jurors say on their oath that Ralph wounded John’s destrier as the latter charged him. Therefore Ralph is condemned to prison until etc. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 190.]
(to prison)

122. Simon the chapman and Adam de Kendale were attached to answer Brydok de Scratburg on a plea of robbery. Whereon she complains that Simon and Adam broke into the church of the Nine Maidens in defiance of the king’s protection and furtively carried off goods which they found there, namely wool and brass pots worth 40 shillings, to B[rydok's] damage and against the peace etc. Simon and Adam come and deny force and injury when etc, and say that they are not guilty of the breaking of the church or of the carrying off of B[rydok's] goods. They put themselves [on the country], as does B[rydok]. The jurors say on their oath that S[imon] and A[dam] are not guilty. Therefore it is considered that S[imon] and A[dam] are acquitted. B[rydok] is in mercy for a false claim. [The amercement is] pardoned because [she is] a pauper. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 190.]
(pardoned because [she is] a pauper)

Gaol delivery at Forfar on Thursday next after the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [5 July 1296].

123. Patrick de Ireland was attached at the suit of Robert Benedicite on a plea of robbery. Whereon he complains that on Wednesday next after the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul [4 July] Patrick came to Forfar and broke into his shop and furtively took and carried off three dozen kerchiefs, value 12 shillings, to his damage etc. Patrick comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that an esquire of the earl of Ulster bought the kerchiefs and gave them to him for safekeeping, and that he did not acquire them by furtive or malicious means. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Robert. The jurors say on their oath that Patrick furtively took the kerchiefs as he is charged. Therefore etc. Asked about his chattels they say that [he has] none. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 190.]
(to be hanged; no chattels)

124. Henry Broadfoot [was] appealed of the death of one John de Kesteven at the suit of John’s son William, who is under age. Charged with this he says that he is in no wise guilty and puts himself on the country. The jurors say on their oath that Henry is not guilty of the death of John. Therefore [he is] acquitted.
(acquitted)

125. Thomas the barber and Michael le Schymere (were] appealed of robbery at the suit of John Poleyn. Whereon he complains that on Wednesday next after the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul [4 July] Thomas and Michael came to Forfar and furtively took and carried off £4 7 shillings, to his grave damage etc and against the peace.

Thomas and Michael came and denied force and injury when etc, and say that they did not take or carry off the money from John as they are charged. They put themselves [on the country], as does John.

The jurors say on their oath that Thomas and Michael are not guilty of the deed and [are] therefore acquitted. John is condemned to prison until etc. He makes a fine of 2 shillings, for which R[obert] the gaoler answers.
(to prison; amercement 2 shillings, paid to W. Bacon)

126. Richard de Pulisdon [was] attached and charged for plundering within lands protected by [the king's] peace subsequent to the proclamation, and in violation of the protection of the king. He says that he did not [do so] after the proclamation [had been made], and puts himself [on the country. The jurors say on their oath that he is not guilty of the charge. Therefore [he is] acquitted.
(acquitted)

127. Maurice Brown was attached to answer Margery de Leeds on a plea of felony. Whereon she complains that on Monday next after the feast of St John the Baptist in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [25 June 1296] Maurice came to Margery’s house in Perth and took and led away a white mare. Richard de Leeds, her husband, pursued the mare and Maurice killed him, whereon Margery appeals him of the death of her husband. Maurice comes and denies force and injury when etc, and says that he is not guilty of the death of Richard or of the robbery of the mare. He puts himself [on the country], as does Margery. The jurors say on their oath that Maurice is in no wise guilty and [is] therefore acquitted. Margery is condemned to prison until etc. Later [the amercement is] pardoned because [she is] a pauper.
(pardoned because [she is] a pauper)

Gaol delivery at Aberdeen on Wednesday next before the feast of St Margaret the virgin in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [18 July 1296].

128. John Page [was] taken and imprisoned. And because no one sues John, therefore [he is] acquitted.

129. Henry the woodward, William the carter, William de Berneston, Henry le Tene and John Organ were attached for the death of a Welshman killed in Roxburgh, namely [one] of the company of the earl of Hereford. Charged with the offence in the presence of the steward they say that they are not guilty of the death of the Welshman and put themselves [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that Henry and the others are not guilty of the death of the Welshman and [are] therefore acquitted.
(acquitted)

Gaol delivery at Elgin on Saturday next after the feast of St James the apostle
in the 24th year of the reign of King E [dward] [28 July 1296].

130. Peter merchant of Burgh and William merchant of Barnard Castle [were] attached at the suit of the king for the robbery of lengths of cloth and wool. Robert the smith and John Ossor [were] attached for the robbery of flour. John de la Neyland [was] attached for the robbery of wool. All the aforenamed, attached at the suit of the king and charged, say that they bought the lengths of cloth, the wool and the flour in the king’s market, and that they did not acquire them by any other means. They put themselves [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that Peter and the others are not guilty, therefore [they are] acquitted.
(acquitted)

131. Urgane and Hugh de Souththorp, attached at the suit of the king [and] charged with robberies and larcenies done in holy church, say that they are not guilty of the robberies and put themselves on the country. The jurors say on their oath that they are not guilty of the robberies. Therefore [they are] acquitted.
(acquitted)

132. Ieuan de Gelthygaer [was] attached for the death of a boy named John. Charged with this at the suit of the king he says that he is not guilty of the death of John and puts himself [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that Ieuan is not guilty of the death of John. Therefore [he is] acquitted.
(acquitted)

133. Thomas Dun [was] attached for the robbery of books and vestments. Charged with this at the suit of the king he says that he found the books hidden in the ground and that he did not steal them. He puts himself [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that Thomas stole the books and vestments in holy church. Therefore [he is] to be hanged. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 190.]
(to be hanged)

Gaol delivery at Kildrummy on Wednesday the feast of the blessed Peter’s Chains in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [1 August 1296].

134. William de Newcastle and Robert de Woodstock were attached at the suit of Adam de Caldwell, Scot, on a plea of felony. Whereon he complains that William and Robert came, forcibly took and furtively carried off 10 shillings, to his damage of one half mark and against the peace etc.

W[illiam]and R[obert] come and deny force and injury when etc, and say that they did not take any money from Adam. They put themselves [on the country], as does Adam. The jurors say on their oath that W[illiam] and R[obert] are not guilty of the deed. Therefore they [are] acquitted. Adam [is] in mercy. [The amercement is] pardoned because [he is] a pauper.
(amercement pardoned because [he is] a pauper)

135. William de Rothes was attached at the suit of the king because he led John de Morers to the place where the latter was slain. Charged with the death of John he says that he is not guilty and puts himself [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that he is guilty of the death of John. Therefore [he is] to be hanged.
(to be hanged; no chattels)

Gaol delivery at Perth on Wednesday next before the feast of St Lawrence in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [8 August 1296].

136. Matthew de York was attached to answer Christine de Perth on a plea of robbery. Whereon she complains that on Thursday next before the feast of St Botulph in the said year [14 June 1296] Matthew came to Perth in the company of a thief named William le Waleys and took and furtively carried off against her wishes goods and chattels which he found in her house, namely beer, value 3 shillings, to Christine’s damage etc and against the peace. Thereon she brings suit etc.

Matthew says that he is not bound to answer Christine because he is a clerk. Therefore an inquest is taken. The jurors say on their oath that Matthew came to the town in the company of William and that he carried off Christine’s goods as she charged him. Therefore he is condemned to penance. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 191.]

Pleas of the king’s army at Edinburgh on Friday next before the feast of St Barnabas the apostle in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [8 June 1296].

137. Eynonus Day was attached to answer Richard Sparhauk on a plea of trespass. Later [the case] is adjourned by W. de Haukeswell at the instance of Sir William de la Pole.
(amercement pardoned)

138. Ythel ab Kaclyn of Whitchurch was attached [to answer] Roger the servant ofJohn de Swynburn on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence. Ythel puts himself [on the country]. [He makes] a fine of 2 shillings.
(amercement 2 shillings, paid)

139. John the smith was attached to answer Nicholas de Cateby on a plea of illegal robbery of a horse. John presented himself but Nicholas has not prosecuted. Therefore he and his surety for prosecuting, namely William Fraunceis, [are] in mercy.
(amercement 12 pence, paid)

140. David Gam was attached to answer Richard de Hale on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that David illegally robbed him of a striped surcoat at Wheelkirk [the obsolete parish west of Southdean, Roxburghshire], to his damage etc.

David comes and denies force etc. He says that he bought the surcoat in good faith in the king’s market in jedburgh for 16 pence, and that he did not acquire it by malicious means. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Richard.

The jurors say on their oath that David maliciously stole the surcoat and that he is a thief. Asked about its value they say that it is worth 9 pence. Therefore [he is sent] to prison until etc. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 191.]
(to prison; amercement 12 pence)

141. Peter de Mompelers, Robert the servant of Gilbert, Alan de Henton, Eustace Mowere, Gilbert the collier and Walter de Fernacles appealed Meuric ab Ewan Welshman of the death of their fellow William [and] of the robbery of a tunic and a sword. Peter and the others have not prosecuted, and as each stood surety for the other and none has prosecuted, therefore they are to be taken.

With respect to the suit of the king, he [Meuric] says that he is a good and loyal man and is in no wise guilty, and he puts himself [on the country]. The jurors say on their oath that he is a good and loyal man and is in no wise guilty. Therefore [he is] acquitted.
(taken; acquitted)

142. William le Vielur and Maud de Waketon were attached to answer Meuric on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Saturday before the quindene of Trinity [2 June] William came and shot at him with a bow and seriously injured him, to Meuric’s damage and against the peace etc.

William says that he neither shot at Meuric with the bow nor injured him as the latter charged. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Meuric. The jurors say on their oath that William and Maud are not guilty but that if they did do this, they did it in self‑defence. Therefore it is considered that William and Maud are acquitted. Meuric [is] in mercy. His surety [is] Sir John le Strange.
(amercement 12 pence)

143. Thomas Davy was attached to answer Thomas Etecal on a plea that Thomas Davy illegally took and withholds from him a horse worth 5 shillings etc. Thomas Davy comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he bought the horse in the king’s market in Edinburgh with his own money and that he did not acquire it by malicious means. He asks for enquiry to be made. Thomas Etecal says that he was the lawful owner of the horse before the king’s arrival in Edinburgh, and he also asks for enquiry to be made. The jurors say on their oath that Thomas Etecal was the lawful owner of the horse, but they also say that Thomas Davy bought the horse in the king’s market as he said. Therefore it is considered that Thomas Etecal should recover the horse. Thomas Davy, because he also bought the horse, is acquitted.
(acquitted)

144. Robert de Merilou was attached to answer William de Cress–ingham on a plea that Robert illegally took and withholds from him a horse worth 4 shillings which was alienated from his custody almost a week ago, whereby he has suffered damage etc.

Robert comes and denies force and injury when etc, and says that he bought the horse in good faith with his own money in the king’s market in Edinburgh. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does William.

The jurors say on their oath that William is the lawful owner of the horse and that Robert did not buy [it] in the king’s market. Therefore it is considered that William should recover his horse. Robert, because he also bought the horse, is acquitted.
(acquitted)

Pleas of the king’s army at Perth in the 24th year of the reign of king E[dward] [1296].

145. Christine the laundress was attached to answer Walter Bucher on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence and Christine puts herself [on the country.
(amercement 6 pence, paid)

146. John Lovel was attached to answer Alebiiius de Whelton on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when on Friday in Easter Week [30 March] in the said year he came with the king’s army to Berwick, took lodgings and spent the night there and found some money there, on the following Wednesday John came and took the money, namely £29 13s 4d, and carried it off by means of his groom Thomas de Breuse. Later he took Alebinus and imprisoned him until the latter should agree to appear before the king’s justices to declare his indebtedness to John for 20 marks, and to repay the money within a certain term. Furthermore, John kept Alebinus in this state until he agreed to make out for Sir Thomas Lovel, the brother of John, a note of discharge for 26 marks in which Thomas was indebted to him, whereby Alebinus has been wronged and has suffered damage.
(cancelled because [it is] elsewhere)

Pleas of the king at Clunie on Saturday next after the feast of St John the Baptist in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [30 June 1296].

147. John de Bitterlegh was attached to answer Sir William de la Pole. John does not come. Therefore his surety, namely William de Haukeswell, [is] in mercy. It is considered also that John should be attached in his person.
(amercement pardoned)

148. Adam Chabbe was attached to answer Robert de Ripon on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence and Adam agrees to snake a recognisance of debt to Robert for 3 shillings.
(amercement 6 pence, paid to W. Bacon)

149. William de Lucy was attached to answer Theobald de Neville on a plea that while William and his fellows promised to pay to Thomas [sic] two marks for some spoils of war for them, which two marks’ worth [of plunder] William received from Theobald and his fellows, William now illegally withholds the marks, to T[heobald's] damage of ?0 shillings etc.

William comes and says that he never promised [Theobald] any money, nor did he ever receive any of Theobald’s money from his fellows. He is prepared to prove this by judgement of the court. Theobald grants him an oath by his own hand. Later William withdraws in contempt of court. Therefore it is considered that Theobald should recover the two marks against William as well as damages of one half mark. W[illiam] [is] in mercy.
(amercement)

150. John de Banet was attached to answer John de la Reil, constable of Sir Walter de Beauchamp’s Welshmen, on a plea of trespass. John de la Reyl has not prosecuted, therefore he and his sureties for prosecuting [are] in mercy.
(amercement 12 pence)

151. John Russel, Maudok Gen, Mordach de Frodesham and Gronon the Welshman were attached to answer David ap Thomas and Madog ap Goronwy on a plea of trespass. Whereon they complain that on Friday the feast of the blessed Peter [29 June] John and the others came to Clunie, assaulted them and seriously wounded them, to their grave damage etc and against the peace. Thereon they bring suit. John and the others come and say that they did not come there, nor did they assault David and Madog as they are charged. They ask for an enquiry to be made. David and Madog have not prosecuted. Therefore [they are] in mercy.
(amercement 2 shillings)

152. Adam the tailor, Simon de Blye and his wife Sybil, John Cherley and Joan de Carlisle were attached to answer Aspeden on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Adam and the others came to Kinclaven and took and carried off goods and chattels of his worth 40 shillings, to Aspeden’s damage of 20 shillings. Thereon he brings suit.

Adam and the others come and deny force and injury when etc. They say that they did not take or carry off any of Aspeden’s goods. They say rather that they found Aspeden laying crosses on Scottish women and that they wished to attach him. He refused to allow this and fled, leaving behind him some lengths of cloth. They took them in this way and not otherwise, and they ask for enquiry to be made.

And because it is found that they wished to make an attachment without warrant, therefore it is considered that they restore to Aspeden the lengths of cloth and the other goods, and that they be sent to prison until they make a fine to the king for the trespass. The women are pardoned [the trespass]. Adam pays a fine of 2 shillings, Simon de Blye 6 pence. John de Cherley is pardoned [the amercement] by W. Bacon because [he is] a pauper. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 191. ]
(amercement 2 shillings 6 pence, paid to W. Bacon)

153. Robert de St Paul was attached to answer Richard of the kitchen of Sir R[obert] de Tattershall’s company. Robert does not come. Therefore he and his sureties for prosecuting, namely Adam of the pantry of the earl of Warenne’s company and William de Walmesford, [are] in mercy. It is also considered that he should be attached in his person. [The amercement is] pardoned by the marshal in open court.
(amercement pardoned)

154. William de Lou was attached to answer Gilbert the marshal. William does not come. Therefore he and his surety, namely Philip de la Botelerye, [are] in mercy. It is considered that he should be attached in his person.
(amercement)

Pleas of the king’s army at Forfar on Thursday next after the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul [5 July].

155. Robert de Ripon sues for two alienated mares found in the custody of the marshal. And because no one claims them they are surrendered to Robert by surety of Hankyn de la Botelerye and Roger de Ripon.

156. Ralph the tailor was attached to answer William le Furber on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence. Ralph returns the mare and puts himself [on the country].
(amercement 6 pence, paid)

157. Alan de Blye was attached to answer John at the gate of Forfar on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Alan came and took his sow and carried it off, to John’s damage etc and against the peace etc.

Alan comes and denies force and injury when [etc]. He says that he bought the sow in the king’s market in Forfar for 10 pence from a Welshman who had stolen it, and he asks for enquiry to be made. John says that the sow was in his keeping until the said Thursday, that it ran away from him, and that he found it in Alan’s keeping. He also asks for enquiry to be made. The jurors say on their oath that Alan is guilty of [stealing] the sow. Therefore etc. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 191.]
(amercement 12 pence)

158. Elya son of Nicholas was attached to answer William de Denton. And because William has not prosecuted therefore [he is] in mercy.
(amercement 12 pence)

Pleas of the king’s army at Montrose on Tuesday next after the feast of St Thomas the martyr in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [10 July 1296].

159. William le Park was attached to answer David Whanwhan on a plea respecting a mare. The sureties for prosecuting [are] Llewellyn Veil and Geoffrey the messenger. William presented himself but David has not prosecuted. Therefore William [is] acquitted. David and his sureties [are] in mercy.
(amercement 12 pence)

160. Fulk FitzWarin and David his yeoman were attached to answer Gilbert de Lindsay on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when on Friday the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul [29 June] he came to Arbroath and, acting as marshal for his lord the earl of Hereford, took lodgings in the town for the earl’s company, he found in a house horses and goods to the value of £20. He delivered these lodgings to Fulk’s yeoman David for the use of his lord, intending that the goods therein be reserved to the earl. Thereafter Fulk and David came and alienated a horse worth 10 marks. They are still seised of it, to Gilbert’s damage of 100 shillings etc. Thereon he brings suit.

Fulk and David come and deny force and injury when etc. They say they they never took lodgings from Gilbert on condition that their contents be reserved for the use of the earl. They ask for enquiry to be made, as does Gilbert. Later they put themselves to arbitration and are agreed. Fulk puts himself [on the country]. [The amercement is] pardoned by the marshal. A similar verdict [is returned] in the following plea.
(amercement pardoned)

161. Gilbert de Lindsay and Michael de Forneys were attached to answer Fulk FitzWarin on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Monday next after the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul [2 July] they came to Arbroath and illegally took from his lodgings and led away three horses, to Fulk’s damage etc. Thereon he brings suit.

Gilbert and Michael come and deny force and injury when etc, and say that they did not lead away any of Fulk’s horses from his lodgings. They ask for enquiry to be made, as does Fulk. Later they are agreed as appears above.
(amercement pardoned)

162. Robert de Percy was attached to answer the marshal on a plea respecting an alienated mare. Robert does not come and [is] therefore in mercy.
(amercement 2 shillings)

163. Thomas Brown was attached to answer Master Thomas the physician on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on the day following [the feast of] St John the Baptist [25 June] Thomas Brown came to his lodgings in Perth, took from his lodgings and carried off a coat of mail, value 20 shillings, a tabard, value one half mark, and a little sack with boxes of ointment, value 100 shillings, to Master Thomas the physician’s damage of 100 shillings. Thereon he brings suit.

Thomas Brown comes and denies force and injury when etc, and says that on that day he did not take or carry off the coat of mail, tabard and sack. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Thomas. Later Thomas the physician has not prosecuted. Therefore [he is] in mercy. [The amercement is] pardoned at the instance of the earl of Warenne. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 191.]
(amercement pardoned)

164. Hugh Bakeler was attached to answer Alan de Peniton on a plea that when Alan delivered to Hugh 50 oxen and cows to safeguard for him until he should return from England, Hugh alienated 35 oxen and cows, each worth 5 shillings, to Alan’s damage of 100 shillings. Thereon he brings suit.

Hugh, who is present, is unable to deny this. Therefore it is considered that Alan should recover 7 marks against Hugh for the animals, together with his damages, which are estimated at 40 shillings. H[ugh] is sent to prison until etc.
(to prison)

165. Alebinus de Whelton was attached to answer the king on a plea of trespass. Whereon John Lovel, acting as the king’s marshal in his Scottish army, complains that while on Monday next after the feast of St John the Baptist [2 July] he made a proclamation in the king’s name that no one under pain of forfeiture should in any way go before the banner of the constable and marshal, nevertheless Alebinus had the temerity to presume to do so at Clunie, notwithstanding that proclamation. Thereupon the marshal came and attached Alebinus as one who had shown contempt for the king’s precept, together with two horses which were found with him. These he committed to the custody of one of his yeomen. When he refused to permit Alebinus to clear himself the latter and others of his company effected a rescue, in contempt of the king and to the marshal’s damage of 100 marks. He asks on behalf of the king for enquiry to be made.

Alebinus comes and denies force and injury when etc, and says that he was not aware of the proclamation. But because Alebinus is unable to deny [the rest] the marshal, on behalf of the king, prays judgment.

With respect to the rescue Alebinus says that he is in no wise guilty as charged at the king’s suit. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does the marshal for the king. Therefore [the sheriff] is ordered etc.

The jurors say on their oath that Alebinus effected the escape as the marshal charged and that he bears responsibility for it. Therefore it is considered that the marshal should retain the [profits of the] attachment as is his right by forfeiture. Alebinus [is sent] to prison at the king’s will until etc. [CDS, ii, no. 822, pp. 191‑2.]
(to prison)

Pleas of the king’s army at Aberdeen on Monday next before the feast of St Margaret the virgin in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [16 July 1296].

166. Oliver del Ewe, Henry de Worsop and William de London bring a suit of trespass against Thomas de Topgrave and Jordan de Hartlepool. Thomas and Jordan, who are present, are unable to deny the charge. Therefore they are sent to prison until etc.
(to prison)

167. Walter de Angerton was attached to answer Huna ap Tudor on a plea of robbery of a mare. Whereon he complains that when on Sunday next before the feast of St Margaret the virgin in the said year [1‑0 July 1296] the mare was alienated from him and he found it in Walter’s keeping, Walter illegally withholds the mare, to his damage etc. He asks for enquiry to be made.

Walter comes and says that he bought the mare in the king’s market in Aberdeen. He also asks for enquiry to be made.

The jurors say on their oath that the mare is the legal chattel of Huna ap Tudor and that Walter did not buy it, but rather acquired it by evil means. Therefore it is considered that Huna should have the mare. Walter is condemned to prison until etc. He is mainprised by Ralph de Newcastle and has died.
(amercement)

168. John de Morley marshal of Robert de Tattershall was attached to answer Walter de Flemeng, who sues on behalf of the abbot of Lindores, on a plea that John return to the abbot 30 animals each worth 4 shillings which were found in his seisin. John comes and says that he bought the animals from John de Renham and John de Conan men of the steward. Thereupon he calls them to warranty etc. John de Renham comes on his own and John Conan’s behalf and vouches John de Morley to warranty, therefore etc. Thereafter John de Renham further calls to warranty with respect to the sale of the animals one Gilbert `the Red’ de Coul. Gilbert comes and at first denies the vouch to warranty but later acknowledges the sale of the animals. Therefore it is considered that John de Morley, John de Renham and John Conan are acquitted. Walter is to recover against Gilbert the animals or their value. Gilbert [is] in mercy. He is condemned to prison until etc. He died in prison. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 192.]
(died in prison)

169. Alan de Rokeby brings a suit against Nicholas the physician of Ireland that a horse was alienated from him by Nicholas. Alan calls to warranty John le Fraunceis, who is in the service of the bishop of Durham. He requests the assistance of the court to secure warranty and this is granted. Therefore [the sheriff] is ordered etc.

Alan the complainant finds Henry Maunsel as a surety for prosecuting, and Nicholas, as the owner by warranty, finds as surety Sir Miles de Rotherford. John comes and vouches Nicholas to warranty. Therefore Nicholas [is] acquitted. John restores the horse to Alan by licence. John [is] in mercy, namely for 12 pence.
(amercement 12 pence, paid)

170. Honorius de Staunford was attached to answer Robert de Ros on a plea that he return to Robert 21 animals, namely oxen and cows, which Honorius illegally withholds to Robert’s damage. Thereon he brings suit.

Honorius comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he bought the animals on the preceding Sunday from Henry Bray and Richard de Ireland, whom he calls to warranty thereon. Richard de Ireland comes and vouches to warranty Honorius’s claim to the animals, and says that he and other Irishmen came to acquire them as spoils of war. And because it is found that Richard stole the animals subsequent to a proclamation of peace granted to Robert, therefore it is considered that Robert should recover the animals against Honorius and that Honorius should be permitted to recover against Richard the value of his purchase. Richard is committed to prison until etc. [He makes] a fine of 40 pence.
(amercement 40 pence, paid)

171. David de Twynham was attached to answer the marshal on a plea of a trespass done in the king’s army. He comes and puts himself [on the country] and makes a fine of 2 shillings.
(amercement 2 shillings, paid)

172. Walter Head was attached to answer Geoffrey the lay brother on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on the preceding Friday Walter came to Aberdeen and assaulted him with a stave and seriously wounded him in the head, to Geoffrey’s damage of 20 shillings. Thereon he brings suit. Walter comes and says that he did not assault or wound Geoffrey as the latter charged. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Geoffrey. Later Geoffrey has not prosecuted him and [is] therefore in mercy.
(amercement)

173. Gregory the cobbler was attached to answer Madog Clok on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Gregory came illegally to Aberdeen and assaulted him about the head and mistreated him, to Gregory’s [sic] damage of 20 shillings. Thereon he brings suit. Gregory comes and says that Madog assaulted him and, while defending himself, he injured Madog. And because he acknowledges the trespass therefore it is considered that Madog should recover his damages, which are assessed at 2 shillings, and that he should remain in prison until etc. [He makes] a fine of 6 pence.
(amercement 6 pence)

174. William de la Pole was attached to answer Robert Scot of Hardelawe on a plea of debt. Whereon he complains that while in Edinburgh he sold to William 66 measures of beer, each measure worth 8 pence, making a total of 44 shillings, William illegally witholds from him the 44 shillings, to Robert’s damage of 20 shillings. Thereon he brings suit.

William comes and denies force and injury when [etc]. He says that he never took anything from Robert, but rather that he found the beer in his lodgings in Aberdeen. The beer he therefore took from the house and not from Robert. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Robert. Therefore [the sheriff] is ordered etc to summon etc.

Pleas of the king’s army at Elgin on Saturday next after the feast of St James in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [28 July 1296].

175. William le Fraunceis was attached to answer Thomas the clerk of Elgin on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when he deposited 476 lamb pelts in the church of the blessed Mary of Inch in order to safeguard them from thieves, the pelts were taken and carried off and later found in the seisin of William. Thomas requested their return, but William refused to surrender them and illegally withholds them still, to Thomas’s damage etc. Thereon he brings suit. William comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he bought the pelts in Elgin from some unknown men on the preceding Thursday and he is ready to prove this. Later they are agreed by licence. William puts himself [on the country]. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 192.]
(amercement 12 pence)

Pleas of the king’s army at Perth on Wednesday next before the feast of St Lawrence in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [8 August 1296].

176. Theobald le Butler was attached to answer Theobald de Neville on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Thursday next after the feast of St Thomas the martyr [12 July] Theobald le Butler came with force and arms with some unknown men to Perth and from there took from Theobald de Neville, and caused to be taken by the unknown men, some 66 animals, a mare and a foal, then led these away. He illegally withholds the animals still, to T[heobald]‘s damage of 120. Thereon he brings suit.

Theobald le Butler comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he was not involved in this, that he did not commit any trespass and that the animals did not come into his possession as the latter charges. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does the other. Therefore let there be a jury [summoned] thereon immediately. Later Theobald le Butler has withdrawn from court without awaiting the inquest, whereon Theobald de Neville prays judgment on the grounds that the case is undefended.

Pleas of the king’s army at Berwick on Tuesday next after the feast of St Bartholomew in the 24th year of the reign of King E[dward] [28 August 1296].

177. Aymer the 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 60 shillings which he found there, to Robert’s damage of 40 shillings. 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 40 shillings. 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 answerjohn de 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 de Roddom, namely 13 oxen and cows, 2 mares, a foal, a brass pot, a cooking pot and other chattels, value 100 shillings. 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 de 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 Roddom as the latter complains, nor did he do him any damage or injury. He asks for enquiry to be made.

John de Roddom says that John Sampson attached him as the result of a conspiracy between the said J[ohn] 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 de 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 20 pence 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 two 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 of the pleas [heard] at Berwick.

182. Thomas Malet was attached to answer William de 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 100 shillings. 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 Huntercumbe was attached to answer Walter de 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 Huntercumbe 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 100 shillings. Thereon he brings suit etc.

Walter de Huntercumbe 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. [CDS, ii, no. 822, p. 192.]
(inquest)

184. John Sampson and Robert le Eyr of Prestfen 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 W[illiam] 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 s0 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. [CDS, ii, no. 822, pp. 192-3.]

185. Peter the yeoman of Robert Ughtred, William de Thorp, Hugh de Rydal, Roger Pyperkyn, Robert de Musgrave and Robert Bernard were attached to answer Robert FitzPayn 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 Scot. 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 100 shillings, to Robert’s damage of 100 shillings. 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 Ughtred 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. [CDS, ii, no.822, p.193.]

This text was originally published in the Miscellany of the Scottish History Society, vol. XI, 1990. We thank the Scottish History Society and Cynthia Neville for their permission to republish this text.

This entry was posted in Primary Sources and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.