Beverley CD M1571 A Tr

The lady queen sent to the beloved to her Francis Meryng gentleman seneschal of the liberty of her town of Beverley her writ close in these words:

Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the beloved to her Francis Meryng gentleman seneschal of the liberty of her town of Beverley, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the rendering of judgment of a plea that was before you in our court of the abovesaid town without our writ according to the custom of the same town between Robert Haldenbye of Burnholme in the county of Yorkshire gentleman and William Burghe of Warter in the abovesaid county gentleman of this that the same William render to the aforementioned Robert £500 manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same William as we have received from his complaint, we, wanting the error if any there was to be corrected in due form and full and swift justice to be done to the abovesaid parties in this part, order you that if judgment has been rendered thereof then send distinctly and openly the record and process of the plea abovesaid with all things touching them to us under your seal, and this writ, so that we have them on the Octaves of St. Martin wherever we shall then be in England so that, the abovesaid record and process having been inspected we may make to be done further thereof for the correction of that error what of right and according to the law and custom of our realm of England should be done. Tested me myself at Westminster October 15 in the 13th year of our reign. [October 15, 1571]

The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ follow in these words:

Beverley in the County of Yorkshire. The court of record held there on Monday, viz., March 12 in the 13th year of the reign of our lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., [March 12, 1571] before Francis Meringe armiger seneschal of the court there.

Robert Haldenbye of Burnholme in the county of Yorshire gentleman complains against William Burghe of Warter in the county abovesaid gentleman concerning a plea that he render to him £500 that he owes him and unjustly detains etc. Pledges to prosecute: John Doo and Richard Roo, pledges on the end of the plea to gaol. And wherefore the same plaintiff by John Hutchenson his attorney says that whereas the abovesaid William Burghe on September 25 in the 11th year of the reign of our lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., [September 25, 1569] at Beverley abovesaid within the fee and jurisdiction of this court by his obligatory writing sealed by his seal and proffered here in court, the date of which is the abovesaid day and year, granted that he was bound and firmly obligated to the aforementioned Robert Haldenbye in the abovesaid £500 to be paid to the same Robert Haldenbye or to his certain attorney or his executors on the feast of St. Michael the Archangel then next following, nevertheless the abovesaid defendant although he was often asked did not render the abovesaid £500 to the aforementioned plaintiff, has not yet rendered, but refused to render them to him to this time and still refuses, wherefore the same plaintiff says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of £500, and thereof he produces suit etc.

And now the abovesaid William Burghe by Thomas Ellys his attorney comes here in court and defends force and injury and the abovesaid debt as and when etc., and he seeks oyer of the said writing obligatory, which is read to him in these words:

Let all know by the presents that I William Burghe etc.

And he seeks oyer of the condition of the same writing obligatory, which is read to him in these words:

The condicion of this obligacion ys suche etc.

Which having been read and heard, the same defendant by his abovesaid attorney says that he ought not to be burdened of the abovesaid debt by virtue of the abovesaid writing, because he says that the said writing obligatory is not his deed, wherefore he seeks judgment with damages and expenses of court made in this part and that the abovesaid plaintiff be precluded from his abovesaid action against him. And this he seeks that it be inquired by the countryside. And the plaintiff similarly. Wherefore it is ordered to the bailiff of the town and liberty abovesaid that he should make to come 12 prudent and lawful men of the town and liberty abovesaid at the court to be held here on Monday [IMG 0676] viz., April 30 in the 13th year of the reign of our lady Elizabeth now queen to try the abovesaid issue etc. The same day is given to the abovesaid parties etc.

At which day the bailiff returned 12 prudent etc., viz., Thomas Settrington, John Wade, Stephen Smayles, John Reade, William Barker, Robert Hardye, William Spalden, William Jenkinson, John Colson, George Bartram, John Thriske, and John Headon, who separately exacted appeared etc. And the parties abovesaid by their attorneys abovesaid similarly exacted appeared and thence the abovesaid jurors chosen, tried, and sworn by the consent of the abovesaid parties to try the abovesaid issue on their oath say that the abovesaid obligatory writing is the deed of the abovesaid defendant, and that he the abovesaid plaintiff should recover against the abovesaid defendant the abovesaid £500 with 2d for his damages; nevertheless in mercy by his pledge.

Afterwards, scilt., at Westminster comes the abovesaid William Burghe in his proper person under the custody of the marshal etc. And immediately he says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment

manifestly it was erred in this that it does not appear by the abovesaid record by what right or what authority the abovesaid court at the town of Beverley abovesaid was held, viz., neither by the strength of some letter patent nor of a royal grant nor by pretext of some custom or legitimate prescription.

Likewise it was erred for [IMG 1739] this, viz., that the abovesaid seneschal did not have authority, power, or warrant to hold before him the abovesaid court or to have cognizance of pleas by virtue of any royal charter or by virtue of any custom or prescription.

And also in the record and process abovesaid it is manifestly erred for this that no precept or summons or any other legitimate process was adjudicated out of the abovesaid court to compel the same William Burghe to appear in the same court or to answer the aforementioned Robert in the abovesaid plea.

And in this that the abovesaid Robert in the abovesaid plea narrated against the same William in the abovesaid plea before the same William was present in court and before any appearance made by the same William there in his proper person or by some attorney, and not after his appearance, as above it appears of record.

Moreover in the record and process abovesaid it was manifestly erred for this, viz., that the abovesaid jurors were exacted, tried, and sworn and rendered their verdict between the abovesaid parties immediately on the return of the first precept of the venire facias against the same jurors was adjudicated, in this, viz., that those jurors were not by law exactable on the return to the court of the first precept of venire facias but ought to have been allocated one default at least after the abovesaid precept of venire facias in the abovesaid plea before the abovesaid jury ought to have been taken between the abovesaid parties.

Moreover, in the record and process abovesaid it was manifestly erred in this that the jurors abovesaid did not assess the damages by occasion of the detention of the abovesaid debt nor for the outlays and costs of the abovesaid Robert in the abovesaid plea, and nevertheless the abovesaid judgment was rendered that the abovesaid Robert should recover against the abovesaid William the abovesaid £500 with 2d for his damages taxed by the jurors abovesaid, where indeed no damages were taxed by the same jurors.

Likewise it was erred for this that whereas in each action of debt founded on an obligatory writing if the party defending deny his deed and is convicted, judgment ought to be rendered against the same defendant that the same defendant should be taken, in this, viz., that the abovesaid judgment was rendered against the same William that he be in mercy and not that be should be taken, as above it appears of record.

And finally in the record and process abovesaid and in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred for this, viz., that whereas the same William by the same plea abovesaid was detained in the prison of the lady queen of the town of Beverley abovesaid and the same William on April 28 in the 13th year of the reign of the now lady queen [April 28, 1571] prosecuted out of the court of the lady queen before the queen herself a certain writ of the same lady queen directed to the seneschal and bailiffs and governors of the town of Beverley abovesaid whereby the same lady queen ordered them that they should have the body of the abovesaid William detained in the prison abovesaid under the custody of the same bailiffs under safe and secure conduct together with the day and cause of his taking and detention by whatsoever name the same William is known in the same, before the lady queen at Westminster on the Saturday next after the morrow of the Ascension of the Lord then next following to do and receive what the court of the lady queen before the queen herself should consider, which certain writ the same William afterwards and before the judgment in the abovesaid plea rendered, scilt., at the abovesaid court held at the abovesaid town on the abovesaid April 30 in the abovesaid 13th year delivered to the aforementioned Francis Meryng then seneschal of the abovesaid court, seeking allocation thereof, by pretext of which certain writ the abovesaid plea ought to have ceased, which notwithstanding the abovesaid the abovesaid seneschal after the receipt of that writ proceeded in that plea further and pronounced and rendered the abovesaid judgment against the same William.

And the same William sought a writ to warn the abovesaid Robert to be before the lady queen to hear the abovesaid record and process, and it is granted to him etc., whereby it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., of his bailiwick he should make it to be known to the aforementioned Robert that he be before the lady queen on the Octaves of St. Hilary wherever etc., to hear the abovesaid record and process if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned William etc. And thereon comes John Burghe of Saltfleetby in the county of Lincoln gentleman, John Fawkener of the city of Lincoln gentleman, Henry Lukyn of Huntingdon in the county of Huntingdonshire merchant tailor and William Kaye of Great Grimsby in the county of Lincolnshire yeoman and mainperned to have the body of the abovesaid William before the lady queen at the aforementioned term and thus from day to day until etc., viz., each of the abovesaid mainpernors under a penalty of £500 4s 2d, which certain sum the same mainpernors acknowledged and each of them for himself acknowledged to be made from his lands and chattels and to be levied to the use of the abovesaid Robert Haldenby if it should happen that the abovesaid William at any day fixed for him by the court of the lady queen here not appear or that he not prosecute the abovesaid writ of error with effect or if it should happen that the judgment abovesaid be affirmed against the same William and he not render himself to the lady queen’s prison of the marshalsea by the abovesaid occasion or not at all satisfy the abovesaid debt and damages to the aforementioned Robert etc.

At which certain Octaves of St. Hilary before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid William Burgh in his proper person. And the sheriff returns that he by virtue of the abovesaid writ directed to him thereof by prudent etc., of his bailiwick made it to be known to the aforementioned Robert to be before the lady queen at the day and place abovesaid as it was ordered to him by the abovesaid writ. And the abovesaid Robert on the fourth day of the plea solemnly exacted although thus warned did not come nor did he say anything to the abovesaid errors. Thereon the abovesaid William as before says that in the record and process abovesaid and in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred by alleging the abovesaid errors alleged above in the form abovesaid. And he seeks that the judgment abovesaid on account of those errors and others being in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and had for nothing and that the court of the lady queen here proceed to the examination both of the record and process and of the abovesaid errors. And because the court of the lady queen here is not yet advised to render its judgment of and on the premisses, day thereof is given to the aforementioned William before the lady queen until the quindene of Easter wherever etc., to hear thereof their judgment etc., because the court of the lady queen here is thereof not yet etc.

At which day before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid William in his proper person. Thereon, all and singular the premisses having been seen and by the court of the lady queen here more fully understood and mature deliberation having been had thereof, it is considered that the abovesaid judgment on account of the abovesaid errors and others being in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing and that the abovesaid William be restored to everything he lost by occasion of that judgment etc.

[Margination:]

Let the judgment be revoked.

Let him be restored.