Bridgnorth CR M1573 A Tr

From Waalt

The lady queen sent to the bailiffs and burgesses of her town of Bridgnorth 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 bailiffs and burgesses of her town of Bridgnorth, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the rendering of the judgment of the plea that was before you in our court of the abovesaid town without our writ according to the custom of the same town between David Lloid of the town of Shrewsbury in the county of Shropshire draper and George Cooke of Bridgnorth in the abovesaid county tanner concerning a debt of £40 that the same David exacts from the aforementioned George as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same George as we have received from his complaint, we, wanting the error if any there was to be corrected in due manner 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 you should send distinctly and openly the record and process abovesaid with everything touching them to us under your seals, and this writ, so that we have them at the quindene of Easter wherever we shall be in England, so that, the record and process abovesaid having been inspected, we may make to be done further thereof what of right and according to the law and customs of our realm of England should be done; and you the aforementioned bailiffs and burgesses if the abovesaid George should find you sufficient security to answer the aforementioned David concerning the abovesaid debt and damages adjudicated to him in this part if it should happen that the abovesaid judgment be affirmed, then make the same George to be delivered for the abovesaid security from the prison by which he is detained by occasion of the abovesaid judgment if by that occasion and not by another he is detained in the same, the said business concerning the error pending before you undiscussed, if according to the custom of the abovesaid town it should be done. Tested me myself at Westminster February 7 in the 13th year of our reign [February 7, 1571]

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

Bridgnorth. The little court there held March 28 in the 11th year of the reign of the lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc. [March 28, 1569] before Richard Capper and William Tyddour bailiffs of said lady queen of her town of Bridgnorth in the county of Shropshire.

At this court David Lloyd puts in his place George Deos against George Cooke in a plea of debt.

At this court the abovesaid David Lloid of the town of Shrewsbury in the county of Shropshire draper complains of George Cooke lately of Bridgnorth in the county of Shropshire tanner otherwise called George Cooke of Bridgnorth in the abovesaid county tanner concerning a plea that he render to him £40 that he owes him and unjustly detains. And he finds pledges to prosecute: John Doo and Richard Roo. And wherefore the same David by George Deos his abovesaid attorney says that, whereas the abovesaid George Cooke on October 2 in the 9th year of the reign of Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., [October 2, 1567] here at Bridgnorth abovesaid within the jurisdiction of this court by a certain obligatory writing granted that he was bound to the same David in the abovesaid £40 to be paid to the same David when the same George Cooke should be required thereof, nevertheless the abovesaid George Cooke although often asked has not rendered the abovesaid £40 to the same David but to this time he has refused to render them to him and still refuses, wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of 100s. And thereof he produces suit etc. And he proffers here in court the abovesaid writing that [IMG 0086] attests the abovesaid debt in the abovesaid form, the date of which is the abovesaid day and year etc.


Bridgnorth. The little court there held on November 21 in the 13th year of the reign of most dreaded Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith [November 21, 1570] before William Sparry and James Peres bailiffs of the lady queen of her town of Bridgnorth.

At this court the abovesaid George Cooke put in his place George Barbour against the abovesaid David Lloid in the abovesaid plea.

At this court the abovesaid George Cooke by his abovesaid attorney comes and defends force and injury when etc. And he says that the abovesaid obligation is not the deed of the said defendant in the manner and form as the abovesaid plaintiff against him narrated. And of this he puts himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid David Lloid similarly etc. Therefore it is ordered to Hugh Savage and Francis Stynton serjeants at mace and minister of the abovesaid court of the said town that they should make to come before the bailiffs here 12 jurors etc., by whom etc., and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. The same day is given to the parties abovesaid then here etc.


Bridgnorth. The little court held there on December 4 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., [December 4, 1570] before William Sparry and James Peres bailiffs of the said lady queen of her town of Bridgnorth according to the custom of the same town.

At this court come both the abovesaid David Lloid by his abovesaid attorney and the abovesaid George Cooke by his abovesaid attorney. And the abovesaid Hugh Savage and Francis Stynton serjeant at mace and minister of the abovesaid court now send here the abovesaid precept directed to them in the abovesaid form served and executed in all things together with the names of 12 jurors annexed to the same. Which certain jurors were exacted and did not appear. Therefore a day to appear here at the next court next to be held. The same day is given to the abovesaid parties here etc.


Bridgnorth. The little court held December 18 in the 13th year of the reign of the Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc.

At this court came both the abovesaid David Lloid by his abovesaid attorney and the abovesaid George Cooke by his abovesaid attorney. And the abovesaid jurors were exacted and appeared, who were tried and sworn; they say on their oath that the obligatory writing abovesaid is the deed of the said George Cooke in the manner [IMG 1049] and form as the abovesaid David narrated against him. And they assess the damages of the same David by occasion of the detention of the premisses beyond outlays and his costs put out by him on his suit in this part at 3s4d, and for outlays and costs to him at 3s1d. Therefore it is considered by the court here that the abovesaid David Lloid recover against the aforementioned George Cooke the abovesaid debt at £40 by the abovesaid jury assessed in the abovesaid form and that the abovesaid George Cooke be in mercy, and that the abovesaid David Lloid have judgment against the defendant of the abovesaid debt on January 29 in the 13th year of the reign of the said now lady queen.


Afterwards, scilt., on Friday next after Easter month in this same term before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid George Cooke by Michael Moseley his attorney. And he says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the judgment abovesaid it was manifestly erred in this

that the abovesaid jury gave their verdict that the abovesaid obligatory writing was the deed of the abovesaid George, whereas no such issue was joined between the parties abovesaid, as above it appears of record.


And further it was erred in this that it appears by the abovesaid record that the abovesaid jury assessed the damages of the same David by occasion of the detention of the abovesaid debt beyond his outlays and costs put out by him on his suit in this part at 3s4d and for those outlays and costs at 3s1d, and the abovesaid judgment was rendered that the abovesaid David Lloyd recover against the aforementioned George the abovesaid debt at £40, omitting the abovesaid damages, and thus no judgment was rendered concerning the abovesaid damages as by the law of the land it ought, as above it appears of record.

And the same George seeks a writ of the lady queen to warn the abovesaid David 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., he should make it to be known to the aforementioned David that he be before the lady queen on the morrow of Holy Trinity wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned George etc.


At which day before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid George Cooke by his abovesaid attorney. And the sheriff returns that the abovesaid David Lloyd has nothing in his bailiwick whereby he could make it to be known to him, nor is he found in the same.


[Margination:]

It is discontinued, per curiam.