Eye CR E1536 A Tr

From Rpalmer
Jump to: navigation, search

The lord king sent to the bailiffs of his town or borough of Eye his writ close in these words:

Henry VIII by the grace of God king of England and France, defender of the faith and lord of Ireland and on earth the head of the English church to the bailiffs of his town or borough of Eye, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the rendering of judgment of the plea that was before you in our court there without our writ according to the custom of the same town or borough between William Heryng and Elizabeth his wife lately the wife of Simon Torold deceased and Edward Torold concerning a certain trespass inflicted on the same William and Elizabeth by the aforementioned Edward as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Edward as from his complaint we have received, we, wanting the error if any there was to be corrected in due manner and full and speedy justice to be done to the same Edward in this part, order you that [if] judgment has been rendered thereof, then you should send the abovesaid record and process with all things touching them openly and distinctly to us under your seals, and this writ, so that we have them at one month after Easter wherever we shall be then in England, so that, the record and process abovesaid having been inspected, we may make to be done further what of right and according to the law and custom of our realm of England should be done. Tested me myself at Westminster February 4 in the 27th year of our reign [February 4, 1536].


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

Eye; Complaints. The court held on Saturday next after the feast of St. Martin the bishop in the 26th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [November 11, 1534].

William Heryng and Elizabeth his wife lately the wife of Simon Torold deceased complain against Edward Torold in a plea of trespass on the case.

William Heryng and Elizabeth his wife lately the wife of Simon Torold deceased by Thomas Smith his attorney complain against Edward Torold concerning a plea of trespass on the case etc., for this that, whereas the abovesaid Edward after the death of the abovesaid Simon, scilt., June 10 in the 23rd year of the reign of the now lord king [June 10, 1531] at Eye within the jurisdiction of this court undertook on himself and faithfully promised to the aforementioned Elizabeth while she was single that he from the feast of St. Michael the Archangel in the 23rd year of the reign of the now lord king [September 29, 1531] well and faithfully would pay or cause to be paid to the same Elizabeth annually a certain annuity of £4 sterling each year during the natural life of the same Elizabeth at two annual terms, scilt., at the feasts of Easter and of St. Michael the Archangel, by equal portions according to the tenor, effect, and true intention of the last will of the abovesaid Simon father of the same Edward as by the same will it manifestly appears, nevertheless the abovesaid Edward, scheming craftily and deceitfully to defraud the abovesaid Elizabeth of the payment of the abovesaid annuity of the abovesaid £4 and totally to deceive the same Elizabeth thereof, although often asked for the payment of the abovesaid annuity of the same £4 to be made to the same Elizabeth while she was single and to the same William and Elizabeth after espousals celebrated between the same William and Elizabeth, viz., at each year twice for three years elapsed and ended at the feast of St. Michael the Archangel in the 26th year of the reign of the now lord king [September 29, 1534], to this time has not made or caused to be made any payment thereof to the aforementioned Elizabeth while she was single nor to the same William and Elizabeth after espousals celebrated and had between them according to the abovesaid promise and undertaking [but] to this time has refused and still refuses to the damage of the same William and Elizabeth of £40, and thereof he produces suit etc.


Eye. The court held on Saturday next before the feast of St. George the martyr in the 26th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [April 23, 1535: the text would indicate 1534, but it must be 1535]

And the abovesaid Edward in his proper person comes and defends force and injury when etc., and says that the abovesaid William and Elizabeth ought not have his abovesaid action against him, because he says that he did not undertake or promise the aforementioned Elizabeth while she was single to pay the aforementioned Elizabeth a certain annuity of £4 in the manner and form as the abovesaid William and Elizabeth above complain against him, and this etc.


Eye. The court held on Saturday next after the feast of the Ascension of the Lord in the 27th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [May 8, 1535]. [IMG 0116]

And the abovesaid William and Elizabeth as before say that the abovesaid Edward undertook to the same Elizabeth while she was single to pay the aforementioned Elizabeth the abovesaid annuity of £4 in manner and form as the abovesaid William and Elizabeth by their writ and narration abovesaid suppose above, and he (sic) seeks that this be inquired by the countryside. And the abovesaid Edward similarly. Therefore 12 etc.


Eye. The court held on Saturday on the feast of the name of Jesus in the 27th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [August 7, 1535].

Inquest between William Heryng and Elizabeth his wife plaintiffs and Edward Torold defendant by the oath of Richard Vale, William Fanner, Robert Breche, Anthony Gyssyng, Simon Wace, John Peper, John Manystye, John Beker, Richard Praty, John Rede, Peter Boteley, and Richard Dexter, who say that the abovesaid Edward undertook on himself and promised to pay Elizabeth the wife of William Heryng while she was single an annuity of £4, and thus he owes £12 for the three years as declared, and for damages 20d. Expenses, 20d.


Eye. The court held on Saturday next before the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary in the 27th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [January 29, 1536].

Whereas at the court held on Saturday on the feast of the name of Jesus in the 27th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [August 7, 1535] it was adjudicated by the inquest on which William Heryng and Elizabeth his wife plaintiffs and Edward Torold defendant put themselves in a plea of trespass on the case that the same Edward had undertaken and promised to pay Elizabeth the wife of William Heryng while she was single annually £4 and thus to owe for three years £12 as in the declaration etc. and for expenses 40d, therefore it is considered by the court that they recover both the abovesaid £12 for their damages and 40d for the expenses of the court, and for the increment of the court by judgment of the bailiff and the court, 10s to the plaintiffs by levari facias. And the defendant in mercy etc.


Afterwards, scilt., on [blank] day of May this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Edward Torold by George Symcott his attorney and says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judment it was manifestly erred, viz.,

in the first place it was erred that it does not appear in the record abovesaid by what authority the abovesaid court was held, whether by prescription or by virtue of some letters patent of the now lord king or his progenitors etc.


Likewise it was erred that whereas the abovesaid William Heryng and Elizabeth his wife lately the wife of Simon Torold at the abovesaid court held there on Saturday next after the feast of St. Martin the bishop in the 26th year of the reign of the said now lord king they affirmed their complaint against the abovesaid Edward Torold concerning a plea of trespass on the case, in this that it does not appear in that record before which judge that court was then held etc.


Likewise it was erred that after anyone put himself on any jury there should be allocated to him one essoin or one default, in this that the abovesaid jury between the abovesaid parties was taken on the first precept of venire facias, on which day the same Edward Torold was not exactable nor bound to appear etc.


Likewise it was erred that in the abovesaid record it does not appear on which day, which place, and before which judge the same writ of venire facias 12 etc., between the abovesaid parties was returnable.


Likewise it was erred that, whereas at the abovesaid court held on the Saturday next before the feast of St. George the martyr in the 26th year of the reign of the now lord king until the next court held there, scilt., on the Saturday next after the feast of the Ascension of the Lord in the 27th year of the reign of the said lord king no continuation was had or made, whereby that plea was totally discontinued etc.


Likewise, it was erred in the abovesaid record that, whereas the abovesaid William Heryng and Elizabeth his wife prosecuted their complaint of a plea of trespass on the case against the abovesaid Edward Torold, at which certain narration the abovesaid Edward appearing at the said court held on the said Saturday immediately before the feast of St. George the martyr in the 26th year abovesaid at Eye abovesaid pleaded that he did not undertake in the manner and form etc., and, issue thereof having been joined between the same parties, after various continuations the jury thereof being empaneled and sworn said on their oath and gave their verdict that the said Edward owed to the aforementioned William and Elizabeth £12 etc., in this that the same jurors gave their verdict that the said Edward owed the said £12, whereas the same jurors were burdened to inquire concerning the damages of the said plaintiffs and not of any debt, so that the same jurors did not find the said issue joined between the abovesaid parties as above it appears from the record etc.

And the same Edward seeks that the abovesaid judgment on account of the abovesaid errors and others found in the record and process abovesaid be revoked and annulled and had completely as null. And he seeks a writ to warn the aforementioned William Heryng and Elizabeth 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 of Suffolk that by prudent [etc.] he should make it known to the aforementioned William and Elizabeth that they be before the lord king at the quindenes after St. Michael wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Edward.