Evesham CR M1607 A Tr

The Lord king sent to the mayor, recorder, and chief alderman of his borough of Evesham 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, recorder, and chief alderman of his borough of Evesham, 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 borough without our writ according to the custom of the same borough between Henry Dingley jr., gentleman and Arthur Ordwaye and Margery his wife of a certain trespass and ejectio firme inflicted on the same Henry by the aforementioned Arthur and Margery as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Arthur and Margery 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 abovesaid record and process with everything touching them to us under your seal, and this writ, so that we have them on the morrow of Martinmas wherever we shall then be in England so that, the abovesaid record and process 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 September 12 in the 5th year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland and the 41st of Scotland [September 12, 1607].

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

The Borough of Evesham in the county of Worcestershire. Pleas held in the court of record of the lord king of the borough of Evesham in the county abovesaid within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough according to the liberty and privileges of the same borough granted by virtue of certain letters patent of the said lord king sealed under his great seal bearing date at Westminster on April 3 in the 3rd year of his reign of England, France, and Ireland and the 38th of Scotland [April 3, 1605] before Thomas Wattson armiger mayor, Henry Frowyke armiger recorder, and Thomas Bigges knight senior alderman of the abovesaid borough on May 26 in the 5th year of the reign of the said our Lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., and 40th of Scotland [May 26, 1607].

At this court comes Henry Dingley, jr., gentleman, in his proper person and complains against Arthur Ordwaye and Margery his wife concerning a plea of trespass and ejectio firme to the damage of £60. And he finds pledges to prosecute his abovesaid complaint against the abovesaid Arthur and Margery, scilt., John Doo and Richard Roo. And he seeks process thereof to be made for him against the aforementioned Arthur and Margery according to the liberty and privileges of the abovesaid borough. And it is granted to him. And thereon according to the liberty and privileges of the abovesaid borough it is ordered to Richard Brantley and Richard Jhans serjeants at mace of the abovesaid borough and ministers of the abovesaid court that they attach the abovesaid Arthur and Margery if etc., so that they be at the said lord king’s next court of the abovesaid borough to be held in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman on Tuesday, scilt., June 2 then next following [June 2, 1607] to answer the aforementioned Henry Dingley concerning the abovesaid plea etc. The same day is given to the same Henry Dingley there etc.

And thereon the same Henry Dingley puts in his place Richard Cresheld his attorney against the aforementioned Arthur and Margery in the abovesaid plea etc.

At which certain said lord king’s next court of the abovesaid borough held in the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., the said June 2 [June 2, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman comes the abovesaid Henry Dingley by his abovesaid attorney. And the abovesaid serjeants at mace of the abovesaid borough and ministers of the abovesaid court return the abovesaid precept served and executed in everything, viz., that they by virtue of the abovesaid precept attached the abovesaid Arthur and Margery, scilt., by John Denn and Richard Fenn, so that they be at the same court to answer the aforementioned Henry Dingley in the abovesaid plea as it was ordered to them.

And thereon the abovesaid Arthur and Margery at the same court solemnly exacted in their proper persons come and put in their place John Stoneman their attorney against the abovesaid Henry Dingley in the abovesaid plea.

And thereon day is given both to the aforementioned Henry Dingley and to the abovesaid Arthur and Margery to be here at the said lord king’s next court of the abovesaid borough to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., June 9 then next following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman.

At which certain said lord king’s next court of the abovesaid borough held in the abovesaid guildhall on the said June 9 [June 9, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman come both the aforementioned Henry Dingley and the abovesaid Arthur and Margery by their abovesaid attorneys.

And thereon the abovesaid Henry Dingley by narrating against the aforementioned Arthur and Margery in the abovesaid plea by his attorney complains for this, viz., that, whereas Thomas Wattson gentleman by his certain indenture, the other part of which sealed by the seal of the same Thomas bearing the date of May 12 in the 5th year of the reign of our Lord James now king of England etc., [May 12, 1607] the same Henry proffers here in court, at Evesham abovesaid and within the jurisdiction of this court demised, granted, and handed over at farm to the aforementioned Henry Dingley one messuage and 100 [acres of land] with appurtenances in Bengworth abovesaid and within the jurisdiction of this court called Holtes together with all other messuages, lands, tenements, meadows, rough pastures, pastures, pasturage, commons, profits, easements, emoluments, and hereditaments whatsoever in Bengworth abovesaid and within the jurisdiction of this court abovesaid late in the tenure of Margaret Ordwaye widow deceased to have and hold the abovesaid messuages and tenements and other the premisses with appurtenances to the aforementioned Henry Dyngley from January 1 [IMG 1769] last past before the date of the same indenture until the end and term of two years then next following fully completed and ended, by virtue of which certain demise the same Henry entered in the messuages and tenements abovesaid and other the premisses with appurtenances and was thereof possessed until the abovesaid Margery then and still the wife of the abovesaid Arthur afterwards, scilt., May 13 in the abovesaid year, with force and arms etc., here at Evesham and within the jurisdiction of the abovesaid court entered into the messuage and tenements and other the premisses abovesaid with appurtenances on the possession of the same Henry Dingley and ejected, expelled, and removed the same Henry from his abovesaid farm thereof, his abovesaid term not yet finished, and they held the same Henry out of his possession thereof and still do so, and inflicted other enormities on him etc., against the peace of the said lord king now etc., and to the damage of the same Henry of £60, and thereof he produces suit etc.

And thereon at this same court the abovesaid Arthur and Margery by their abovesaid attorney come and defend force and injury when etc. And he seeks license thereof to emparl until the next court of the said lord king to be held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on Tuesday, scilt., June 16 then next following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder and senior alderman. And it is granted to them. The same day is given to the aforementioned Henry Dingley here etc.

At which certain next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid borough held in the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., the said June 16 [June 16, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman came the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Arthur and Margery by their abovesaid attorney come as before and defend force and injury when etc. And they seek license further to emparl thereof until the next said lord king’s court to be held in the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on Tuesday, scilt., June 23 then next following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman, and it is granted to them by the assent of the attorney of the aforementioned Henry Dingley. The same day is given to the aforementioned Henry Dingley here etc.

At which certain said lord king’s next court held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on Tuesday the said June 23 [June 23, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Arthur and Margery by John Stoneman their abovesaid attorney come and defend force and injury when etc. And they say that the abovesaid plaintiff [ought] not [be able to have his] action etc., because they say that as to the coming with force and arms and the whole abovesaid trespass except the abovesaid ejectment the abovesaid Margery is guilty in nothing thereof. And of this they put themselves on the countryside. And the abovesaid plaintiff similarly. And as to the abovesaid ejectment supposed above to have been made the abovesaid Arthur and Margery say that long before the abovesaid time at which etc., and at the abovesaid time at which etc., the abovesaid tenements were and are customary lands and parcel of the manor of Bengworth abovesaid and are and were from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary demisable and demised by the lord of the abovesaid manor through his seneschal for the time being and to each person or whatsoever persons wanting to receive them at term of life at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor by court roll of that manor; and the abovesaid Arthur and Margery say that there is had and from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary has been had such a custom within the abovesaid manor that whenever the lord of the abovesaid manor through his seneschal should demise or grant any customary lands or tenements parcel of the abovesaid manor and to be held of the same manor by copy or copies of the court rolls [IMG 1770] or to the same persons to whom the abovesaid lands or tenements abovesaid are demised or granted in the abovesaid form he or they will have and hold them to themselves and their assigns for term of life at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor, and after the death of such person or such persons the relict or relicts of such person or persons will have and hold them while she or they remain single and chaste or they remain at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor, and that the executor or administrator of such relict or relicts will have and hold them after the death of such relict or such relicts for one whole year next following the death of such relict or such relicts; and further they say that a certain John Ballard late abbot of the late monastery of Evesham abovesaid long before the time at which etc., was seised of the manor abovesaid with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee in right of his late monastery abovesaid, and thus thereof being seised the same abbot long before the time at which etc., viz., August 12 in the 29th year of the reign of the Lord Henry the eighth of his name late king of England [August 12, 1537] by a certain George Throckmorton knight then seneschal of the lord late abbot of the abovesaid manor at his court of the abovesaid manor then held at the same manor granted the abovesaid tenements to a certain William Ordway [who] then had as wife a certain Margaret to have and hold the abovesaid tenements to the aforementioned William Ordwaye for term of his life at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor by copy of the court rolls of the same manor, by virtue of which grant the same William Ordwaye entered into the abovesaid tenements and was thereof seised in his demesne as of his free tenement for term of his life at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor; afterwards the same William Ordway being seised thus of the abovesaid tenements died, and the abovesaid Margaret survived him and being his wife relict and remaining single and chaste entered on the abovesaid tenements and was thereof seised in her demesne as of her free tenement for term of her life being single and chaste at the will of the lord according to the abovesaid custom; and afterwards thus being single and chaste and seised thereof at Bengworth abovesaid on November 16 last past she died; after whose death the administration of the goods and chattels of the same Margaret was committed to the aforementioned Arthur by a certain John Amye doctor of laws ordinary of that place; by virtue of which commission the aforementioned Arthur entered into the abovesaid tenements and was thereof possessed for the term of one year already running and beginning from the abovesaid November 16 at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor; and that the abovesaid Thomas Watson gentleman at the time at which it is supposed that the same Thomas demised the abovesaid tenements in the abovesaid form had nothing thereof except by color [IMG 0960] of a certain charter of feoffment made thereof to him and his heirs by the lord late abbot and his convent long before the abovesaid grant made to the aforementioned William Ordwaye of the same tenements in the abovesaid form whereby nothing of the same tenements ever transferred into the possession of the abovesaid Thomas Wattson, whereby the abovesaid Margery by the precept of the same Arthur entered into the abovesaid tenements on the possession of the same Henry Dingley and ejected, expelled and removed the same Henry as well he might. And this they are ready to verify, wherefore they seek judgment if the abovesaid Henry ought to have or maintain his abovesaid action against them etc.

And thereon the abovesaid Henry Dingley by this abovesaid attorney sought at the same court a day thereof to replicate until in the next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid borough to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., June 30 then next following [June 30, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman, and it is granted to him. The same day is given to the aforementioned Arthur and Margery here etc.

At which certain next said lord king’s court held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on the said June 30 [June 30, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Henry Dingley then and there by his abovesaid attorney seeks day further to replicate until the next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid borough to be held within the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., July 7 then next following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman, and it is granted to him by the assent of the abovesaid attorney of the aforementioned Arthur and Margery. The same day is given to the aforementioned Arthur and Margery here etc.

At which certain said lord king’s next court held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on the said July 7 [July 7, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Henry Dingley then and there by his abovesaid attorney by replicating [says] that he by anything alleged by pleading by the abovesaid Arthur and Margery above ought not to be precluded from having his abovesaid action against the same Arthur and Margery, because he says that the abovesaid Margery from her own proper injury at the abovesaid time at which etc., entered into the messuage, tenements, and other abovesaid premisses on the possession of the same Henry and ejected, expelled, and removed the same Henry from his possession and held him out of his possession thereof and still does so in the manner and form as the abovesaid Henry above complains against them. And by protesting that the abovesaid plea of the abovesaid Arthur and Margaret above pleaded in bar is less sufficient in law to preclude the same Henry from having his abovesaid action against the same Arthur and Margery, by protesting also that long before the time at which etc., and at the abovesaid time etc., the abovesaid tenements were not and are not customary lands and parcel of the manor of Bengworth abovesaid and are not and from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary were not demisable and demised by the lord of the abovesaid manor through his seneschal for the time being to each person or whatsoever persons wanting to accept them at term of life at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor by the court rolls of that manor in the manner and form as the abovesaid Arthur and Margery above by pleading alleged, by protesting further also that the administration of the goods and chattels of the abovesaid Margaret were not committed to the aforementioned Arthur as above in pleading they similarly alleged, without this that there is had from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary such a custom within the manor abovesaid that whenever the lord of the abovesaid manor through his seneschal should demise or grant any customary lands or tenements parcel of the abovesaid manor and to be held from the same manor by copy or copies of the court rolls of the same manor to any person or persons to have and hold to the same person or the same persons to whom the lands or tenements abovesaid are demised or granted in the abovesaid form will have and hold them to themselves and their assigns for term of life at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor, and after the death of such person or such persons the relict or relicts of such person or persons will have and hold them while she or they remain single and chaste at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor and that the executor or administrator of such relict or such relicts will have and hold them after the death of such relict or such relicts for one whole year next after the death of such relict or such relicts in manner and form as the same Arthur and Margery by pleading above alleged. And this he is ready to verify, whereof since the abovesaid Arthur and Margery above acknowledge the abovesaid ejectment, the same Henry seeks judgment and his abovesaid damages by occasion of that ejectment to be adjudicated to him etc.

And thereon the abovesaid Arthur and Margery at the same court by their abovesaid attorney seek a day thereof to rejoin until the next said lord king’s next court of the abovesaid borough to be held within the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., July 14 then next following [July 14, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman. And it is granted to them etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Henry Dingley here etc.

At which certain next said lord king’s court held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on July 14 [July 14, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman came the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Arthur and Margery by their abovesaid attorneys further seek thereof day to rejoin until the next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid borough to be held within the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., July 21 then next following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman. And it is granted to them by the assent of the abovesaid attorney of the abovesaid Henry Dingley. The same day is given to the aforementioned Henry Dingley here etc.

At which certain said lord king’s court held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on the said July 21 [July 21, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Arthur and Margery then and there proffer a said lord king’s certain writ of certiorari emanating out of the court of chancery. And they seek that the said writ be allocated here in the same court, and it is granted to them etc. And thereon at the same court day is given both to the aforementioned Henry Dingley and to the aforementioned Arthur and Margery to be here at the next said lord king’s court to be held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on Tuesday, July 28 then next following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman, until which day process in and on the complaint in the abovesaid plea was continued.

At which certain said lord king’s next court held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on Tuesday, scilt., on July 28 [July 28, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman came the abovesaid parties by their attorneys [IMG 1771] abovesaid. And day is given further both to the aforementioned Henry Dingley and to the aforementioned Arthur and Margery to be at the next said lord king’s court to be held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on Tuesday, scilt., August 4 then next following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman until which day process in and on the complaint and plea abovesaid was continued.

[Further continuations:

From August 4 to August 11, 1607

From August 11 to August 18, 1607]

At which said lord king’s court held within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on August 18 [August 18, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Henry Dingley in his proper person then and there proffers a certain said lord king’s writ to proceed emanating out of the court of chancery directed to the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman ordering the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman by the abovesaid writ that they proceed with that speed of which they are capable according to the liberty and privileges of the abovesaid borough. And he asks that it be allocated, and it is granted etc.

Thereon at the same court comes the abovesaid Henry Dingley by his abovesaid attorney. And the abovesaid Arthur and Margery say nothing to preclude the abovesaid Henry from his abovesaid action. Thereon the abovesaid Henry seeks judgment and his damages by occasion of the trespass and ejectment abovesaid to be adjudicated to him.

Therefore it is considered by the same court that the abovesaid Henry Dingley recover against the abovesaid Margery his abovesaid term as well as his damages by occasion of the abovesaid trespass and ejectment. And because it is not known what damages the abovesaid Henry Dingley sustained both by occasion of the abovesaid trespass and ejectment and by his outlays and costs put out on his suit in this part, therefore it is ordered to the aforementioned Richard Brantley and Richard Jhans serjeants at mace of the abovesaid borough and ministers of the abovesaid court that they or one of them according to the liberty and privileges of the abovesaid borough make to come at the next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid borough to be held within the guildhall abovesaid on Tuesday, scilt., August 25 then next following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman 12 free and lawful men of the abovesaid borough diligently to inquire on their oath what damages the abovesaid Henry Dingley sustained both by the before set out occasion and for his abovesaid outlays and costs.

At which certain next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid borough held in the abovesaid guildhall on the said August 25 [August 25, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman comes the abovesaid Henry Dingley by his abovesaid attorney. And the abovesaid serjeants at mace of the abovesaid borough and ministers of the abovesaid court return the abovesaid precept directed to them in the abovesaid form served and executed in everything, viz., that they made to come 12 free and lawful men of the abovesaid borough as it was ordered to them, viz., William Allen, Robert Brantley, John Preedye, Bartholomew Collye, Richard James, jr., Robert Tandye, Richard Archard, John Hodges, Alexander Angell, Phillip Marshall, Thomas Curteys, and John Tysoe, who, exacted and sworn to [tell] the truth concerning the premisses, say on their oath that the abovesaid Henry Dingley sustained damages by occasion of the abovesaid trespass and ejectment beyond his outlays and costs put out by him on his suit in this part at £18 12s, and for those outlays and costs at 1d. Therefore it is considered here by the said lord king’s court of the abovesaid borough that the abovesaid Henry Dingley recover against the abovesaid Arthur and Margery his abovesaid damages found by the abovesaid jury in the abovesaid as well as 43s adjudicated by the said lord king’s court here of the abovesaid for his outlays and costs by his assent by way of increment, which certain damages all amount to £20 15s1d, and let the abovesaid Margery be taken etc.

Afterwards, scilt., on Monday next after the morrow of St. Martin this same term before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid Arthur and Margery his wife in their proper persons. And the abovesaid Margery renders herself to the prison of the marshal of the marshalsea of the lord king before the king himself by occasion of the abovesaid judgment; she is committed to the marshalsea etc. And immediately she says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred in this, scilt.,

that whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid Thomas Watson mentioned in the abovesaid narration demised, granted, and handed over at farm to the aforementioned Henry Dingley a messuage and tenement with appurtenances in Bengworth abovesaid and within the jurisdiction of the abovesaid court called Holtes together with all other messuages, lands, tenements, meadows, rough pastures, pastures, pasturages, commons, profits, easements, emoluments, and hereditaments whatsoever in Bengworth and within the jurisdiction of the abovesaid court late in the tenure of Margaret Ordway widow deceased to have and hold the messuage and tenements abovesaid and other the premisses with appurtenances to the aforementioned Henry Dingley from January 1 last past before the date of the abovesaid indenture until the end and term of two years then next following fully to be completed and ended, for this that no certitude is expressed in certain concerning the abovesaid things demised specified in the abovesaid narration of the aforementioned Henry Dingley nor concerning the quantities or numbers of acres of the same as by law in this part ought to have been done, manifestly it was erred, as above appears of record.

And further in the record and process abovesaid as well as in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred in this that by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid judgment rendered in the abovesaid form was rendered against the aforementioned Arthur and Margery because the same Arthur and Margery said nothing in bar of the abovesaid action of the aforementioned Henry Dingley, whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that the same Arthur and Margery among other things pleaded that there was a certain custom within the manor of Bengworth abovesaid as is contained in the abovesaid bar of the same Arthur and Margery, to which certain plea of the same Arthur and Margery the abovesaid Henry Dingley [IMG 0962] by replicating among other things traversed the same custom, and for this that the abovesaid Henry Dingley did not plead to issue of the countryside between the parties abovesaid in this part on the traverse for that, as by the law of the land in the abovesaid case he ought to have pleaded, manifestly it was erred, as above appears of record.

And the same Arthur and Margery seek a writ of the lord king to warn the abovesaid Henry Dingley to be before the lord king to hear the record and process abovesaid. And it is granted to them etc. Whereby it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., he should make known to the aforementioned Henry 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 aforementioned Arthur and Margery etc. And thereon come William Farmer of Evesham in the abovesaid county yeoman, Michael Averell of Evesham abovesaid yeoman, Thomas Hill of Bidford in the county of Warwickshire yeoman, and Roland Katherens of the parish of St. Andrew in Holborne London yeoman in their proper persons, and they mainperned to have the body of the abovesaid Margery before the lord king at the aforementioned term wherever etc., and thus from day to day until etc., and that the same Arthur and Margery prosecute the said writ of error with effect and that if it happen that the abovesaid judgment is affirmed against the aforementioned Arthur and Margery that then the abovesaid damages adjudicated above in the abovesaid form against the same Arthur and Margery as well as all the outlays and costs that would be adjudicated here by the court of the lord king to the aforementioned Henry Dingley by occasion of the delay of the abovesaid execution according to the form of the statute etc., would be made from the lands and chattels of them and each of them and levied to the use of the abovesaid Henry Dingley if it happen that the same Arthur and Margery not at all pay those damages, outlays, and costs to the aforementioned Henry or the aforementioned Margery not render herself to the abovesaid prison of the marshal of the marshalsea of the lord king by that occasion etc.