Hayes v. Lefevre I (Jurdan atte Heghes v Le Fevre)

Novel disseisin where the plaintiff was beyond sea when his father died. His sisters entered and alienated, and afterwards he entered upon the seisin of the heirs of his sister's feoffees.
William the son of Jordan Hayes (Jurdan atte Heghes) brought an assize of novel disseisin against John, the son of John Lefevre, and one Maud. These made default, and the assize was therefore awarded. It said that one Jordan Hayes (Jurden atte Heghes) , William's father, died seised of these tenements in his own demesne as of fee, and that upon his death two daughters entered as one heir and divided the tenements between them. Maud, one of the parceners, alienated her share to one John Lefevre, the father of this John against whom this assize is brought. John the father died, and John the son entered as son and heir. The other sister alienated her share to the others named in the writ.
And they said that one parcener and sister was dead; and they said that this William who now brings etc. was in Gascony, Knowing naught of the death of his father, for twenty years after the alienation, when he came and put himself in the tenements of which his father died seised upon the seisin of the infants who had entered as heirs upon their father's death; and they prayed assistance from the court.
SPIGUBNEL J. The assize has found that Jordan died seised of these tenements, and that two daughters entered after his death and alienated. The feoffees died seised, and their sons, who are now sued as disseisors, entered as heirs; and this William entered against them and they ejected him. Wherefore abide your judgments.
[1] i.e. the assize, who find a special verdict.

One John the son of William brings an assize of novel disseisin against Adam of B. and Richard of E. and complains of being disseised of two acres of land etc. Adam replies as tenant of one acre, and Richard as tenant of another; and they say that they have done no wrong. The assize says that William, the father of John who brings this assize, had a son, to wit, this John who brings this assize, and three daughters. William died seised of these tenements, at which time this son of his was beyond sea, and therefore the three sisters entered as heirs apparent, and they alienated to the fathers of the infants who now answer as tenants; and these say that two of the sisters are dead, and that the third, named in the writ, is alive; and they say that twenty years after the alienation John, who now brings his plaint, came to the house and put himself in upon the seisin of the infants who had entered after the deaths of their fathers; and they ejected him; and they pray the Court's aid and abide its judgment.
Westcote and Passeley said that if a stranger had abated himself after the death of W., the father of this John who brings this assize, and if the daughters had brought the mortdancestor and the assize had said that their father had died seised and that this same W. had a son who was beyond sea, then, in those circumstances no judge would have forced them to say whether he was dead or alive, and the seisin would have been adjudged to the daughters upon the condition that their brother should have his heritage if he subsequently returned; and, in that case, if he had returned, he might very properly have entered etc.; but we submit that he cannot now, in the present circumstances, enter upon the seisin of the purchasers; and he ought to be put to his action.
The matter stands over.

At Alton the foreign and town hundreds went seriously wrong, and they and a number of individuals in the town were heavily fined. A full and instructive record of the enquiry into their misdeeds is given.

Richard Swel had caused a woman to be buried without view of the coroners and sheriff; and the following evidence was given. Ailwin the Thresher said that Goda the Widow had hired him to dig in her garden. He came the next day and dug until the first hour, when a woman called Seild daughter of Fot came and told him that Goda was dead in her house. He entered and found her dead on her bed and clothed. He said that she had been in poor health for half a year or more; one day she would lie in bed and another day go about the town as one in good health. The first person he told was Richard Beaupeinnie, who denied this and said that Ailwin told Walter Guldirie, who told him; he bade Walter enter the house to see if it were true, and Walter said that he dared not.

After pledges for these three men had been given, Henry Wiard and Lawrence de Hegh for the foreign hundred said that Walter de Bere told them that he had heard say that a woman named Goda was digging in her garden and fell dead on her threshold as she was entering her house, and was buried the same day after vespers without view of the sheriff and coroners.

Afterwards Walter and his servants went to the house and found there two pigs, a cow, a leaden vessel and other utensils, which they seized into the king's hands. They put the king's look on her chamber, where there were goods which they thought to be worth twenty marks; on behalf of the king they forbade anyone to remove aught until it had been decided who ought to have them; and they gave the key to Geoffrey son of Torbert, one of Walter's servants. Afterwards Richard Swel and Alan son of Torbert entered the house and removed the pigs and the cow and the utensils; they took the key from Geoffrey and opened the lock of the door of the chamber and took away all the chattels found there. Afterwards Walter came before the full hundred and complained of Richard and Alan, whose act was specially unjust because they had heard say that Goda was a usurer (usuraria).

Another of Walter's servants said that he put the lock on the door with his own hands on behalf of the king; his testimony was supported by two other witnesses. Geoffrey son of Torbert testified in the full hundred that he gave the key to Richard and Alan.

The town hundred gave similar evidence. Richard and Alan also gave evidence; but from this point the membrane is fragmentary.

The foreign hundred was amerced ten marks and the town hundred was amerced twenty marks; and the following members of the latter were amerced the following sums in addition: Richard Swel eight and a half marks, Alan Turbern (called earlier son of Torbert) six marks; Geoffrey Turbern four marks; John Swel, William Gobion and Walter le Gelden (earlier Guldene) two marks each; and Richard and Alan had also to pay twenty shillings for Goda's chattels.

Trivial though it is, this chance survival is not without interest, if only because such trivialities are not often set out in detail at this early date.

# 43 Hurlocke & Saunderson c Collett

Hurlocke & Saunderson c Collett
#1539 file 7 20th mem
Bill of Lading - iron sold afloat by Collett to Hurlock & Saunderson

A bill of the 71 kintalls of iron lodyn for Mr. Collette mercer in the Mary Martyn Jesus. In Bilbowe the vijth day of November anno 1539 Mr Collette hathe ladyn by the grace of God in good saffettye I Thomas Holande in the good shyppe namyd the Mary Martyn wherein is master for thys present vyage Thomas Hege lxxj kintalls of yron in ends 44 . . . the which 71 kintalls to be consygned in London unto John Collet mercer And it goes for iij tone and xj kintalls he paying for the fraight of every tonne accordyug to the charter party made in London In wytness of the truythe I the sayde master or the purser for me have firmyd iij bylls of one tenor the one complyed and fullfylled and the other to stand voyd By me Thomas Heygge

45.
Norfolk.
William of Burwood in mercy for several defaults.
The same William was attached to answer the lord king and William of Limesy on this plea: the lord king had given an order to the sheriff that he should place the aforesaid William of Burwood, Brice his brother, William del Heg of Smallburgh, senior, John of Lynn, John, parson of the church of Sloley, Matilda Selote of Stanhoe and John her son by gage and safe pledges to be before the king on the Octave of the Purification last in this year to answer the said William of Limesy concerning the plea why with force and arms against that William of Limesy's will and against the king's peace they ravished and abducted Walter, son and heir of Richard Peytevin of Stanhoe (who is under age and whose marriage belongs to that William of Limesy), when he was found at Stanhoe; and in the meanwhile he was diligently to inquire where in his bailiwick that heir was and to take him wherever he might be found and to guard him safely and securely so as to have him before the king on the aforesaid day to be restored to one or other of the aforesaid William of Limesy, William of Burwood, Brice [ his] brother and William del Heg to whom he ought to be restored. And he had taken the aforesaid Walter, son and heir of the aforesaid Richard Peytevin, and he had handed hirn over to William of Colney to be safely and securely guarded and brought before the king in accordance with the tenor of the aforesaid king's command. The same William, together with the aforesaid John son of Matilda and Matilda, took that heir, who was thus in the king's custody, from the same William as he was eoming to the king by night with that heir on Monday[1] after the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary last and ravished him and abducted hun whither they Nsished. With respect to this the aforesaid William, who sues for the king and for himself, says that the aforesaid William of Burwood did the aforesaid trespass in contempt of that lord king of a hundred pounds and to that William's loss of twenty pounds. And he produces suit thereof etc. And the aforesaid William comes and denies everything etc. And he says that he is in no way guilty of the aforesaid trespass. And concerning this he puts himself on the country etc. And the aforesaid William like~ise. Therefore a jury thereon is to come before the king on the Octave of Hilary wherever etc. Because as well etc.
[1 - 3 February 1298]
Afterwards, on the Octave of St. John the Baptist in the twenty-seventh year of the present king s reign, William of Ormsby sent tho record of the aforesaid inquisition, taken before him, in these words: The jurors say on their oath that the lord king had by his writ ordered William of Kerdiston, the then sheriff of Norfolk, to take Walter son and heir of Richard Peytevinof Stanhoe and to cause him to be safely brought before the lord king on the Octave of the Purification of the Blessed Mary in the twenty-sixth year of the king's reign wherever etc. and that the aforesaid sheriff handed the aforesaid Walter over to the aforesaid William of Colney to bring him there safely and securely. And thereupon there came certain unknown men by night to the aforesaid William of Colney's inn where the aforesaid William of Colney was lodging whilst bringing the aforesaid Walter to the lord king's court, and by William of Burwood's order they took the aforesaid Walter by night against that William of Colney's vill and brought the aforesaid heir to that William of Burwood's house, to that William of Colney's loss of ten pounds, and the aforesaid William of Burwood thus detained him afterwards until now etc. And because it is proved that the aforesaid William of Burwood did the aforesaid trespass in contempt of the lord king, as is aforesaid, it is awarded that the lord king recover the aforesaid ten pounds. And nevertheless the aforesaid William of Burwood is to be taken etc. Afterwards the aforesaid William of Burwood made fine with the lord king by ten shillings, and it is accepted on the pledge of Walter of Mettingham of the county of Norfolk and of Walter of Middleton of the county of Suffolk at the instance of John of Mettingham, the justice.

Somerset (location) - ________ Hedges (ward) - Mr Herbert, Master of Requests (bid winner).
Orphans became wards of a winning bidder, with some positive and some negative results. Some wards had wealth and marriage eligibility which made them desirable subjects of new non-family influence. The administrators who bid were usually civil servants or gentry with many years of service to the crown, and not individuals likely to loot an ample estate.