Document 5/3/0 (SHS Misc. xi, 85-89, 103-07)
- Description
- Gaol delivery at Clunie, Thursday the Vigil of the Apostles Peter and Paul, 24 Edward I (28 June 1296)
118. William of 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 of Chatton was attached to answer William of 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 of 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. (To prison)
122. Simon the chapman and Adam of 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 40s., to Brydok’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 Brydok’s goods. They put themselves on the country, as does Brydok. The jurors say on their oath that Simon and Adam are not guilty. Therefore it is considered that Simon and Adam are acquitted. Brydok is in mercy for a false claim. The amercement is pardoned because she is a pauper. (Pardoned because she is a pauper)
Pleas of the king at Clunie, Saturday next after St John Baptist’s Day, 24 Edward I (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 of Ripon on a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence and Adam agrees to make a recognisance of debt to Robert for 3s. (Amercement 6d., paid to W. Bacon)
149. William de Lucy was attached to answer Theobald Neville on a plea that while William and his fellows promised to pay to [Theobald] 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 Theobald’s damage of 20s. 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 a half mark. William 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 12d.)
151. John Russell, 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 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 2s.)
152. Adam Taylor, Simon de Blye and his wife Sybilla, John Cherley and Joan of 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 40s., to Aspeden’s damage of 20s. 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 2s., Simon de Blye 6d. John de Cherley is pardoned the amercement by W. Bacon because he is a pauper. (Amercement 2s. 6d., paid to W. Bacon)
153. Robert de St Paul was attached to answer Richard of the kitchen of Sir Robert 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 of 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 [of the butlery?], are in mercy. It is considered that he should be attached in his person. (Amercement)
- Firm date
- Thursday 28 June 1296 X Saturday 30 June 1296
- Dating Notes
- Thursday the Vigil of the Apostles Peter and Paul, 24 Edward I and Saturday next after St John Baptist’s Day, 24 Edward I
- Place date (modern)
- Clunie
- Place date (document)
- Cluny
- Related Place
- Clunie (in Stormont)
- 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, 85-89, 103-07
- Calendar number
- 5/3/None
- Charter type
- English Royal Administration
- Language
- Latin
- Notes
- CDS, ii, no. 822