People of Medieval Scotland
1093 - 1371

Document 5/3/0 (SHS Misc. xi, 49-81)

Description
Pleas of the king’s army at Roxburgh, Thursday next after Ascension day, 24 Edward I (10 May 1296) 1. 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) 2. Richard le Seler and Marjory his wife bring a suit against Robert White of Scotland. Whereupon the bishop of Durham testifies through Brian fitz Alan that the deed was done before the making of peace in Roxburgh, so that Robert should not be required to answer for it. Therefore it is considered that Richard and Marjory should recover nothing. Robert is acquitted. (No amercement) 3. Adam de Hamerton was attached to answer Hugh de Scalton on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that while Adam surrendered to Hugh 50s. of money received in the wardrobe to pay his foot soldiers and Hugh gave back the 50s. to Adam to safeguard for him, Adam now illegally withholds them, to Hugh’s damage etc. Thereon he brings suit. Adam comes and says that after he handed over the 50s. to Hugh, he never received it 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 50s. 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 4s. (Amercement 4s.) 4. Geoffrey de Rocresheye was attached to answer Ely Smith and William of Acton on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence in the following manner, namely that Geoffrey is to pay 70s. immediately to Ely and William. Geoffrey is in mercy. His surety for mercy is Sir John of Hotham. (Amercement 12d.) 5. William of Lodelaw was attached to answer William de Lucy, John de le Rouse 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 of 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. (Amercement 2s.) 6. Michael of 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 of Lochore. (Amercement pardoned) 7. German de Broxfeld was attached to answer William de Barsam on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that while he bought from German 104 ewes, value 34s. 8d., and paid the money to German, the latter did not make delivery of the ewes, and illegally withholds them and the money, to William’s damage etc. German 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 German, because he was originally assigned to take delivery of the ewes. He says that he never received any of the said money except 2s. 6d., 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 German 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 German is acquitted. William and his sureties for prosecuting are in mercy. (Inquest; amercement 12d.) 8. Geoffrey, chaplain of Roxburgh, was attached to answer John of Newcastle, chaplain, on a plea of debt. Whereon he complains that Geoffrey illegally withholds a 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 12d., paid) 9. 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) 10. John the warrener was attached to answer Peter de Kertham, man of William de Ros, on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when on Monday in Pentecost Week [14 May] John procured from him 6 sheeps’ carcasses each worth 15d. and was 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 12d.) 11. John le Husser was attached to answer Adam de Haveriton on a plea of trespass. Whereon Adam complains that when his garcon 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 garcon 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 pleas heard at Roxburgh 12. Hugh Thorold was attached to answer Robert of Bamburgh in a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Wednesday before Pentecost (9 May) Hugh illegally seized him, falsely imprisoned him, attached 119 of his sheep and wilfully drove them off, to Robert’s damage of 40s. 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 of 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 safe-keeping 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 Pentecost (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. (Judgment; no amercement) 13. William de Bockele was attached to answer Walter le Poure on a plea that when on Thursday before Pentecost [10 May] Walter surrendered his animals to William for safekeeping, the following night William alienated seven cows, value 30s., 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 12d.) 14. Nicholas son of William of 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 damage of 40s. 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) 15. Roger Hirdman of Corbridge was attached to answer William Taylor of the same place and William of Tynedale 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 3s. and at another time of 40s. Therefore it is considered that William and William should recover against Roger the share pertaining to them of the aforesaid 43s. Roger is in mercy. (Amercement 40d.) 16. William of 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) 17. Roger de Bribour was attached to answer John Fleming on a plea that when on Pentecost 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 2s. Roger is in mercy. (Amercement 12d.) 18. Robert de St Paul was attached to answer Alan fitz Warin, knight, on a plea of illegally withholding a horse. Later they agree by licence to submit themselves to arbitration. 19. William, son of Mynne, was attached to answer Thomas of 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 2s.) 20. William of Earlston was attached to answer Adam le Mouner. Later they are agreed by licence. William puts himself on the country. (Amercement 6d.) 21. Walter le Poure appoints John de Staynton as his attorney against Owen de Montgomery and Adam Carbonnel in a plea of trespass etc. (Attorney) 22. William Neville, Walter le Poure and John Martel offered themselves against Owen de Montgomery. Owen does not come. Therefore his sureties Ralph de Grendon and John de Grendon are in mercy. (Amercement 4s.) 23. Christina of Tottenham and Christina of 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] Christina and Christina came to the town of Roxburgh, seized her and wounded her and carried off goods of hers worth 20s., to Agnes’s damage of a half mark and against the peace. Christina and Christina 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 6d.) 24. 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. 25. 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 3d., for which Thomas paid Lambert 20s. in silver as a down payment 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 20s., 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 20s. from Thomas as William says. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does William. In the meantime Lambert has died. (No amercement) 26. Ralph of Togston was attached to answer Llewellyn ap Ythel on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Tuesday next after the feast of Holy Trinity [22 May] Ralph came and illegally took from him a sword worth 4s. and a cloak worth 2s. 6d. and carried them off, to Llewellyn’s 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 of Ednam and John his own son, are in mercy. (Amercement 2s.) 27. Owen English and Thomas Stragan were attached to answer Master Elias de Heton on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence. Master Elias puts himself on the country by surety of Sir Robert de Engles. (Amercement 40d., paid) 28. William de Beyrmor was attached to answer John Gichard on a plea that William illegally withholds from John 5s., 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 5s. against William and also his damages, which are assessed at 2s.. William is in mercy. (Damages 100; amercement 12d.) 29. Owen de Montgomery was attached to answer William 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 Pentecost [11 May] sold the goods to the king’s treasurer for £110, Owen received 100 marks from that sum. While Owen, Sir Theobald Neville and Adam Carbonnel were assigned by the company to distribute to each man the share pertaining to him, Owen distributed to William and the others only £8 of the said £110 and illegally withholds the remainder, 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 Owen is acquitted. William and the others are in mercy. (Amercement 3s.) 30. Walter Clerk of Roxburgh was attached to answer Roger Lindsay, chaplain, on a plea that whereas Walter was indebted to Roger for 9 marks of silver less 4s. and was to pay him the money at Pentecost 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) 31. Concerning Nicholas de Heyttlestham, for licence to make an agreement with John, garcon of Roger de Somerville, 6d. (Amercement 6d., paid) 32. John, garcon of Walter de Stirton was attached to answer Nicholas, chaplain of 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 pleas heard at Roxburgh 33. Walter de Trilleyk was attached to answer William de Fauconberge on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Walter illegally withholds from him 8s., 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 8s. against Walter, and Walter is in mercy. The amercement is pardoned at the instance of Sir Robert Peverel, brother of the treasurer, on behalf of the constable. (Amercement pardoned) 34. Adam Carbonnel was attached to answer Saer of Huntingfield. Saer has not prosecuted. Therefore he and his sureties for prosecuting are in mercy. (Amercement 2s., pardoned) 35. 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 Pentecost [11 May] sold the goods to Thomas Neville, attorney of the king’s treasurer, for £110 of silver, Owen 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 he 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 2s.) 36. 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 12d.) 37. John of 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) 38. 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 12d. (Amercement 12d.) 39. Robert Scott was attached to answer John Clerk, attorney of Richard of Whiteacre, on a plea that [...] (r’) 40. Augustine, mercer of Roxburgh and Agnes, his wife, were attached to answer Alan of Pennington 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, 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 a half mark for himself and his sureties. (Amercement a half mark) Pleas of gaol delivery at Roxburgh, Thursday in Pentecost Week, 24 Edward I [17 May 1296] 41. Thomas de Croft, Robert of Alverton, Nicholas of 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 a 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) 42. Hugh of Overton, John 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) 43. 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) 44. John of Salton and John 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) 45. Thomas de Lovenne [Lothian?] and Hugh, son of Robert, were attached at the suit of Adam, 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) 46. 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) 47. William, leather-dresser of Newcastle, was taken and detained in prison. No one sues William, therefore he is acquitted. (Acquitted) 48. Aymer of Rutherford brings suit against the marshal for two horses, value 10s., 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. (Acquitted) 49. Robert de Shocton, Thomas of Trickelawe, Alan de Meldon and Diota of 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) 50. Patrick of Whittinghame, William de Senton and Robert of 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) 51. Robert of Earlston and John the hermit were attached at the suit of Henry the forester and William Sutton, and charged by the latter with despoiling them on Saturday next before the feast of Holy Trinity [19 May]. The jurors say on their oath that they are not guilty. Therefore they are acquitted. (Acquitted) 52. Richard of 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 2s.) 53. William, carpenter of Cottingham, was attached to answer Richard of Swinburn on a plea of robbery. Whereon he complains that on Tuesday in Pentecost 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 20s., and a saddle, value 4s., to Richard’s damage etc. [William] 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 12d.. 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 John of Swinburn. (Amercement pardoned) 54. Elias the shepherd, Adam, son of Thomas, Thomas, son of Eustace, Robert de Coppenhop, Adam Russell, 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. (To be hanged) 55. Nigel de Grillawe (of Greenlaw?) 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) 56. Walter of Wiltshire, 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 40d. (Amercement 40d., paid) 57. Stephen Erl and Simon de Thorn, in the vintenarium 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 12d. (Amercement 12d., paid) 58. William of Ettringham, attached for the same, is unable to deny it. Therefore he is sent to prison etc. and makes a fine of 6d. (Amercement 6d., paid)
Firm date
Thursday 10 May 1296 X Thursday 17 May 1296
Dating Notes
Thursday next after Ascension day, 24 Edward I (10 May 1296) and Thursday in Pentecost Week, 24 Edward I [17 May 1296]
Place date (modern)
Roxburgh
Place date (document)
Rokesburgh
Related Place
Roxburgh
Source for Data Entry
C.J. Neville, ‘A plea roll of Edward I’s army in Scotland, 1296’, SHS Miscellany XI (1990), 7-133; some entries included in CDS, ii, no. 822
Trad. ID
SHS Misc. xi, 49-81
Calendar number
5/3/None
Charter type
English Royal Administration
Language
Latin
Notes
CDS, ii, no. 822

Total number of associated factoids: 6

Listing items 1 to 2, page 1 of 1

  • ‹‹ First
  • ‹ Previous
  • 1
  • Next ›
  • Last ››

Date Short Summary Primary Witnesses
Thursday 10 May 1296 X Thursday 17 May 1296 ERA yes
Thursday 10 May 1296 X Thursday 17 May 1296 ERA yes


Listing items 1 to 4, page 1 of 1

  • ‹‹ First
  • ‹ Previous
  • 1
  • Next ›
  • Last ››

Date Short Summary Title Holder
Thursday 10 May 1296 X Thursday 17 May 1296 chaplain of Roxburgh Geoffrey, chaplain of Roxburgh
Thursday 10 May 1296 X Thursday 17 May 1296 chaplain of Maisondieu of Roxburgh Nicholas Chaplain, keeper of Maison Dieu
Thursday 10 May 1296 X Thursday 17 May 1296 mercer of Roxburgh Augustine, mercer, burgess of Roxburgh
Thursday 10 May 1296 X Thursday 17 May 1296 goldsmith of Roxburgh Adam, goldsmith of Roxburgh