Castle Rising CD M1607 A Tr

From Rpalmer
Jump to: navigation, search

The lord king sent to the mayor and burgesses of the town or borough of Castle Rising his writ close in these words:

James by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the mayor and burgesses of the town or borough of Castle Rising, 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 town or borough abovesaid without our writ according to the custom of the same town or borough between William Stede and John Beachampe late of Castle Rising in the county of Norfolk weaver otherwise called John Becham of Castle Rising in the abovesaid county weaver concerning a debt of £10 that the same William exacts from the aforementioned John as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same John 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 distinctly and openly should send the record and process of the abovesaid plea with everything touching them to us under your seals, and this writ, so that we have them on the morrow of Martinmas wherever then we shall be in England, so that, the record and process abovesaid having been inspected, we may make to be done 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 on October 3 in the 5th year of our reign of England, France and Ireland and the 41st of Scotland [October 3, 1607].Adderley.

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

The Borough of Castle Rising. The lord king’s court held there before John Smyth mayor of the borough of Castle Rising abovesaid on Wednesday, scilt., June 10 in the 5th year of the reign of our Lord James by the grace of God king of England, Scotland [sic] , France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., and the 40th of Scotland [June 10, 1607] according to the custom of the borough abovesaid used from time whereof there is no memory of men.

At the same court comes William Stede an attorney of the abovesaid and complains against John Becham concerning a plea of debt on a demand of £10. And he finds pledges to prosecute his complaint abovesaid, scilt., John Doo and Richard Roo. And he seeks process to be made for him according to the custom of the abovesaid borough. And there was granted then to him, viz., a certain precept or order of attachment and it was directed to a certain Thomas Rumbald then serjeant at mace and minister of the abovesaid court that he attach the aforementioned John Beacham by all his goods and chattels or the beasts of the abovesaid John within that jurisdiction to be found so that the abovesaid John Beacham be before the aforementioned John Smyth mayor of the abovesaid borough at the next court of that borough to be held at Castle Rising abovesaid on Thursday July 9 then next following [July 9, 1607] to answer the aforementioned William concerning the abovesaid plea. And the same day is given to the aforementioned William Stede here etc.


At which certain next court of the said lord king held at Castle Rising abovesaid according to the custom of the abovesaid borough before the aforementioned John Smyth mayor of that borough on the abovesaid Thursday, scilt., the abovesaid July 9 in the 5th year of the reign of the now lord king [July 5, 1607] came the aforementioned William Stede in his proper person and presented himself against the abovesaid John Becham concerning the abovesaid plea. And the abovesaid Thomas Rumbold serjeant at mace and minister of that court then and there sent that he by virtue of the abovesaid precept directed to him attached the aforementioned John Beacham by his beasts, viz., 3 milk cows found within the jurisdiction of the abovesaid court according to the custom of the borough abovesaid as within it is ordered to him.

And thereon at the same court the abovesaid John Beacham solemnly exacted did not come or appear. Thereon the aforementioned John Smyth mayor of the abovesaid borough then not wanting as much as was possible in him to have happen a forfeiture of the abovesaid beasts of the abovesaid John Beacham as above attached to the use of the abovesaid borough according to the custom of that borough for lack of appearance in the abovesaid plea but only wanting that the abovesaid beasts thus attached rather be for the value of the same in exoneration of the abovesaid debt, the same John Smyth mayor then instantly sent the aforementioned Thomas Rumbold serjeant at mace of the abovesaid court to the house of the aforementioned John Beacham in Castle Rising abovesaid to communicate with the aforementioned John Beacham and to have known from the same John if he wanted to do anything in the abovesaid plea to exonerate his abovesaid beasts as before attached by the abovesaid Thomas Rumbold serjeant so that that is just might happen to the same John Beacham in that part. And the aforementioned serjeant then returned that he was not able in any way to meet the abovesaid John Beacham, but nevertheless at the same court John Beacham by a certain Hugh Thurlowe his cousin in writings sought his defaults according to the custom of the abovesaid court. And it is granted to him.

And the abovesaid William Stede at the same court in his proper person narrated in writings against the abovesaid John Becham in the abovesaid plea as follows in these words:

The Borough of Castle Rising. John Beacham of Castle Rising in the abovesaid county weaver alias John Beacham of Castle Rising in the abovesaid county weaver was summoned to answer William Stede concerning a plea that he render to him £10 that he owed him and unjustly detains etc. And wherefore the same plaintiff in his proper person complains and says that, whereas the abovesaid John Becham on April 23 in the 41st year of the reign of the Lady Elizabeth late queen of England at Castle Rising within the jurisdiction of this court [IMG 0799] by his certain obligatory writing sealed by the seal of the same John Becheam proffered here in court, the date of which is the abovesaid day and year acknowledged that he was bound to the abovesaid William Stede in the abovesaid £10 to be paid to the same William Stede when he should be asked thereof, nevertheless the abovesaid John although often asked has not yet rendered the abovesaid £10 to the same William but to this time has refused to render them to him and he still refuses, wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of £5. And thereof he produces suit etc.

And he proffers here in court the abovesaid writing that attests the abovesaid debt in the abovesaid form, the date of which is the abovesaid day and year etc.

And now at the same court according to the custom of the abovesaid borough his first default is recorded against the aforementioned John, and day is given to the same John Beacham until the next court here to be held on Thursday, scilt., July 16 then next following. And the same day is given to the aforementioned William here etc.


At which certain next court held here on the abovesaid July 16 in the abovesaid 5th year [July 16, 1607] the aforementioned William Stede in his proper person came before the aforementioned John Smyth mayor. And the same John Becham again was solemnly exacted to answer the aforementioned William in the abovesaid plea, and he did not appear. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid borough his second default is recorded against the same John Beacham. And day is given to the same John here until the next court to be held here on Monday, scilt., July 20 then next following. And the same day is given to the aforementioned William here etc.


At which certain next court held here on the abovesaid July 20 in the abovesaid 5th year [July 20, 1607] before the aforementioned John Smyth mayor came the abovesaid William Stede in his proper person. And the same John Beacham again was solemnly exacted to answer the aforementioned William Stede in the abovesaid plea. And he did not appear. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid borough his third default is recorded against the same John. And day is given to the same John here until the next court to be held here on Friday, scilt., July 24 then next following. And the same day is given to the aforementioned William here etc.


At which certain next court held here on the abovesaid July 24 in the abovesaid 5th year [July 24, 1607] before the aforementioned John Smyth mayor came the aforementioned William Stede in his proper person. And the same John Beacham again was solemnly exacted to answer the abovesaid William in the abovesaid plea. And he did not appear. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid borough his fourth default is recorded against the same John Becham. And day is given to the same John here until the next court to be held here on Monday, scilt., July 27 then next following. And the same day is given to the aforementioned William here etc.


At which certain next court held here before the aforementioned John Smyth mayor on the abovesaid July 27 in the abovesaid 5th year [July 27, 1607] came the aforementioned William [IMG 1637] Stede in his proper person. And the same John Beacham again was solemnly exacted to answer the aforementioned William in the abovesaid plea. And he did not appear. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid borough his fifth default is recorded against the same John. And day is given to the same John here until the next court to be held here, scilt., on July 29 then next following. And the same day is given to the aforementioned William Stede here etc.


At which certain next court held here on the abovesaid July 29 in the abovesaid 5th year [July 29, 1607] before the aforementioned John Smyth mayor came the aforementioned William Stede in his proper person. And the abovesaid John Beacheam three times was solemnly exacted to answer the aforementioned William in the abovesaid plea. And he did not appear but made a default in contempt of court. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid borough it is considered by the court that the abovesaid William recover against the aforementioned John his abovesaid debt and damages by occasion of the detention of that debt adjudicated by the court here to the same William by his assent at 20s11d, and the abovesaid John Beacham in mercy etc.


Afterwards, scilt., on Saturday next after the Octaves of Martinmas this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid John Beacham in his proper person and says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the judgment abovesaid it was manifestly erred in this, scilt.,

that whereas by the law of the land in the abovesaid plea of debt there would be adjudicated and returned a precept of summons against the aforementioned John and not a precept of attachment; nevertheless by the abovesaid record it appears that a precept of attachment and not a precept of summons was adjudicated and returned against the aforementioned John in that plea, and thus manifestly it was erred as above appears of record.


Likewise in this that although by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid John did not make any his appearance at any court of the town or borough abovesaid pending the plea abovesaid, nevertheless the abovesaid William Stede at the abovesaid court of the borough held on the abovesaid Thursday, July 9 narrated against the aforementioned John Beacham in the abovesaid plea, and on that narration afterwards there it was so far prosecuted that the abovesaid judgment was rendered against the aforementioned John in the same plea at the suit of abovesaid William Stede by the court of the abovesaid borough and also therefore it was manifestly erred as above also similarly it appears of record.

And the same John seeks a writ to warn the aforementioned William to be before the lord king to hear the record and process abovesaid. And it is granted to him etc., whereby it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., he should make known to the aforementioned William that he be before the lord king on the Octaves of St. Hilary wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the same John etc.


At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid John Becham by his abovesaid attorney. And the sheriff did not send the writ thereof. And the abovesaid William Stede by Richard Slater his attorney similarly comes. Thereon the abovesaid John Beecham as before says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred by alleging the abovesaid errors alleged by him in the abovesaid form, and he seeks that the abovesaid judgment on account of the those errors and others being in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing, and that he be restored to everything that he by occasion of the abovesaid judgment lost etc. and that the abovesaid William Steed rejoin to the abovesaid errors etc., and that the court of the said lord king here proceed to the examination both of the record and process abovesaid and of the abovesaid matters above assigned for errors.

        And the abovesaid William Steed says that neither in the record and process abovesaid nor in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment in anything was it erred. And he seeks similarly that the court of the lord king here proceed to the examination both of the record and process abovesaid and of the abovesaid matters assigned for errors, and that the judgment abovesaid be affirmed in everything.
        And because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised to render its judgment of and on the premisses, day thereof is given to the abovesaid parties before the lord king until the quindene of Easter wherever etc., to hear its judgment thereof etc., because the court of the said lord king here thereof not yet etc.


At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised to render its judgment of and on the premisses, day thereof is given further to the abovesaid parties before the lord king until the morrow of Holy Trinity to hear their judgment thereof, because the court of the said lord king here thereof not yet etc.