Colchester CD H1608 A Tr contd

From Waalt

Afterward, scilt., Saturday next after the Octaves of Hilary this same term before the lord king at Westminster came the abovesaid Cecilia Nauton by Thomas Shawe his attorney and he says that in the abovesaid record and process and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred

In the first place it was erred in this for this, viz., that in the abovesaid narration no certain time is alleged of the conversion of the beasts and goods abovesaid specified in that narration.


It was erred also in this that within the abovesaid town of Colchester there are and at the time of the affirmation and prosecution of the complaint abovesaid and at the time of the emanation and prosecution of the precept of venire facias abovesaid as well as from time whereof there is not memory of men to the contrary there were divers separate courts of the lord king held within the abovesaid town in the Mootehall of the same town, viz., one court entitled the court of the lord king of common pleas, one other court called the wardmoote courte, and one other court entitled the great court or convocation of the abovesaid town, and that at the abovesaid time of the emanation of the abovesaid precept of venire facias abovesaid, Martin Bessell and Thomas Heckforde were the said lord king’s bailiffs of the abovesaid town and the abovesaid Adam Hallesnothe, Matthew Harvy, Henry Branche, and Winkin Bessell at the same time of the purchase of that precept were ministers of the abovesaid court called the wardmoote court and of the great court, and that also whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that at the said lord king’s court of the abovesaid town held in the Mootehall abovesaid on Thursday June13 in the the abovesaid 3rd year of the said now lord king’s reign it was ordered by the same then bailiffs to the same Adam Halsnothe, Matthew Harvye, Henry Branch, and Winkin Bessell then ministers of the court of that town that they make to come or some of them should make to come at the next court of the said lord king to be held in the Mootehall abovesaid on Thursday June 20 then next following 12 free and lawful men of the vicinity of the East Ward abovesaid within the town of Colchester abovesaid by whom etc., it does not appear by the abovesaid record in any certitude that the abovesaid Adam Halsnoth, Matthew Harvy, Henry Branch, and Winkin Bessell at the time of the emanation of the abovesaid precept of venire facias nor at the time of the return of the same were they or any of them ministers of the abovesaid court of the lord king in which the abovesaid complaint was affirmed by the abovesaid Edward against the aforementioned Cecilia in the abovesaid form nor of which abovesaid courts were they ministers nor were any of them ministers.

And the same Cecilia seeks the lord king’s court’s writ to warn the abovesaid Edward Honinge to be before the lord king to hear the abovesaid record and process. And it is granted to him etc., whereby it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent and lawful men of his bailiwick he should make known to the aforementioned Edward Honinge to be before the lord king on the Octaves of the Purification of Blessed Mary wherever etc., to hear the abovesaid record and process if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Cecilia Nauton etc.


At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Cecilia by her attorney abovesaid. And the sheriff did not send the writ thereof. And the abovesaid Edward Honinge at the same day solemnly exacted similarly comes by John Whittacres his attorney. Thereon the abovesaid Cecilia says that in the abovesaid record and process as well as in the rendering of the judgment abovesaid it was manifestly erred by alleging the abovesaid errors alleged by the same Cecilia in the abovesaid form. And she seeks that the abovesaid judgment on account of the abovesaid errors and others in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing, and that she be restored to everything that she lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment etc., and that the abovesaid Edward rejoin to the abovesaid errors etc., and that the court of the lord king here proceed to the examination both of the record and process abovesaid and of the matters assigned above as errors.


And the abovesaid Edward says that neither in the abovesaid record and process nor in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment was it erred in anything. 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 matters abovesaid assigned above as errors.

And because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised to render its judgment of and on the premisses day is given thereof to the abovesaid parties before the lord king until the quindene of Easter wherever etc., to hear their judgment of and on the premisses, because the court of the lord king here thereof not yet etc. [IMG 0788]


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 to the abovesaid parties before the lord king until the morrow of Holy Trinity wherever etc., to hear their judgment of and on the premisses, because the court of the lord king here thereof not yet etc.


At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. Thereon, both the abovesaid record and process and the judgment rendered on the same and the abovesaid causes and matters above assigned as errors by the abovesaid Cecilia having been seen and more fully understood by the court of the lord king here, because it seems to the court of the lord king here that neither in the abovesaid record and process nor in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment [IMG 2214] was it erred in anything and that that record is not vicious or defective in anything, it is considered that the abovesaid judgment be affirmed in everything and stand in all its strength and effect, the said matters above assigned for errors in anything notwithstanding, and further it is considered by the court of the lord king here that the abovesaid Edward recover against the abovesaid Cecilia £8 adjudicated to the same Edward by the court of the lord king here according to the form of the statute lately published and provided in this manner case for his outlays, costs, and damages that he sustained by occasion of the delay of the abovesaid execution by pretext of the prosecution of the said lord king’s writ of error and that the same Edward have thereof against the aforementioned Cecilia execution etc.


[Marginations:]

Let the judgment be affirmed; for outlays by occasion of the delay of the execution at £8.