Hull CD H1538 A Tr

The lord king sent to the mayor and sheriff of the town of Kingston upon Hull his writ close in these words:

Henry VIII by the grace of God king of England and France, defender of the faith, lord of Ireland and on earth the supreme head of the English church to the mayor and sheriff of Kingston upon Hull, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the rendering of the judgment of the plea that was before you in the court of the abovesaid town without our writ according to the custom of the same town between Robert Freman and Henry Greswell concerning a certain trespass inflicted on the same Robert by the aforementioned Henry as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Henry Greswell as we have accepted 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 distinctly and openly send the record and process of the abovesaid plea with everything touching them to us under your seal, and this writ, so that we have them on the morrow of St. Martin wherever we then shall be in England, so that, the abovesaid record and process having been inspected we may do further thereof for correcting 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 July 4 in the 29th year of our reign [July 4, 1537].

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

Kingston upon Hull. Pleas of the court of the lord king of his town of Kingston upon Hull had there on February 22 in the 27th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [February 22, 1536] before Thomas Dalton mayor and Peter Macus sheriff according to the custom of the same town used and approved from time whereof there is no memory of men.

Robert Freman merchant complains of Henry Greswell of Newcastle upon Tyne mariner concerning a plea of trespass. Pledges to prosecute: William Mathyson and Robert Maymound merchants. He sought process to be made to him according to the use and custom of the abovesaid town, to whom it is granted by the court. Thereon it is ordered to William Rogerson serjeant at mace of the lord king there that he not omit on account of any liberty rather that he attach the abovesaid Henry Greswell defendant so that he be at the next court of the lord king at the guildhall of the town abovesaid before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff to answer the aforementioned Robert Freman plaintiff concerning the abovesaid plea; the same day is given to the aforementioned Robert there. And the aforementioned Robert appeared in his proper person and put in his place William Thow against the said defendant in the abovesaid plea.

At which certain court of the lord king then next following held February 24 in the abovesaid year of the lord king [February 24, 1536] before the aforementioned mayor and sheriffs the aforementioned William Rogerson minister of the abovesaid court [blank] and acknowledged, returned [blank] directed to him that the abovesaid Henry Greswell defendant was attached by pledges Richard Saulle and John Carr until the feast of Peter abovesaid.

Kingston upon Hull. Pleas of the court of the lord king had there before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the use and custom of the town abovesaid on February 24 in the abovesaid year of the lord king [February 24, 1536], the plaintiff appeared by his abovesaid attorney and the plea appeared by this bill. [IMG 0134]

Robert Freman merchant complains of Henry Greswell of Newcastle upon Tyne mariner concerning a plea of trespass. And wherefore the same plaintiff by William Thow his attorney here present in open court complains of this that the same defendant here within the port and Kingston upon Hull within the liberty and jurisdiction of this court with force and arms etc., on December 24 in the 27th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [December 24, 1535] broke and entered a ship called “le Mathewe of Newcastle” and took and carried away and abducted the said goods and chattels as, viz., 60 bundles of linen to the value of £4 10s found then and there against the peace of the lord king and to the grave damage of the same plaintiff and the same defendant inflicted other enormities and injuries on the same plaintiff at that time, wherefore the same plaintiff by his said attorney says that he is worse off and has sustained damages to the value of £6 and thereof by his said attorney he tenders suit.

And the abovesaid defendant by Richard Brynkeley his attorney appears and defends force and injury, wrong and damages, and everything whatever he ought to defend, and as to the force and arms against the peace of the lord king the said defendant by his said attorney: not guilty. And thereof he puts himself on an inquisition of the countryside. And as to the taking, abduction, and taking away of the said 60 bundles of linen specified in the abovesaid declaration, the said defendant by his said attorney says that the aforementioned actor ought not to maintain against him his action, because by his plea he says that so the said defendant presumed to take or abduct any parcel of the linen abovesaid in the form abovesaid as in the same declaration is alleged, but only two bundles of linen as parcel of his portage from parts abroad owed and accustomed to him himself, which certain portage was used between mariners from the custom and use approved from time whereof there was no memory of men, and thus the said defendant by his said attorney says that the aforementioned plaintiff ought not to maintain his action against him.

And the aforementioned plaintiff appeared by his attorney abovesaid and says in manner and form as in the declaration and for the replication says that he ought to maintain his action of this that the said defendant took and carried away the said 60 bundles of linen as the said plaintiff in his declaration [IMG 0313] alleged, and this he seeks to be inquired by the countryside. And the abovesaid defendant by his said attorney similarly. Therefore, process thereof having been continued in the state as now until September 13 in the year of the reign of King Henry VIII then following [September 13, 1536].

At which day the jury, exacted, appeared, viz., Thomas Williamson, Adam Richardson, Robert Bessacle, William Norrey, James Raskall, Richard Foxe, William Draxe, Robert Mandby, Robert Gourley, Robert Pateson, James Wyrlington, and William Clark fuller, sworn, which certain jurors, chosen, tried, and sworn, say on their oath etc., between Robert Freman plaintiff and Henry Greswell defendant in a plea of trespass as it appears by the bill beforewritten with the response of the defendant etc., whereof the abovesaid jurors say that the said defendant is guilty against the said plaintiff in the said plea of trespass at damages of the said plaintiff of £4 10s.

And because the court is not yet advised to render judgment thereof, day is given to the parties abovesaid until Wednesday, viz., September 27 then next following [September 27, 1536].

At which day it was considered by the court that the said plaintiff recover the said 90s of damages taxed by the jury and outlays and costs of court according to the custom of the court and the judgment rendered thereof according etc. And the defendant in mercy.

Afterwards, scilt., on January 23 this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Henry Greswell by Richard Heywood his attorney, and says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it is erred for this, viz.,

that according to the law and custom of the realm of the lord king of England after anyone puts himself on any jury of the countryside there will be allocated to him one essoin or one default before this manner jury of the countryside shall be taken, in this that the jury was taken between the parties concerning the abovesaid plea without any essoin or default allocated to the aforementioned defendant.

And also it does not appear in the abovesaid record that any process or any precept was adjudicated against the said jurors to appear between the abovesaid parties as above appears of record.

And the same Henry Greswell seeks the lord king’s writ to warn the abovesaid Robert Freman 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 it to be known to the aforementioned Robert that he be before the lord king at 15 days after Easter wherever etc., to hear the abovesaid record and process if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Henry etc.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Henry by his abovesaid attorney, and the sheriff did not send the writ thereof. Therefore as formerly it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., he should make it to be known to the aforementioned Robert that he be before the lord king on the octaves of the Holy Trinity wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Henry etc.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Henry by his abovesaid attorney. And the sheriff returns that by virtue of the writ directed to him thereof he made it to be known to the aforementioned Robert to be before the said lord king as it was ordered to him to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., by John Man, Richard Den, William Fen, and Thomas Faux prudent etc. Which certain Robert although thus warned and on the 4th day solemnly exacted, did not come. Thereon, both the record and process abovesaid and the abovesaid error assigned above having been seen and inspected by the court of the lord king here and more fully understood, it is considered that the abovesaid judgment on account of that error and others found in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and wholly had for nothing, and that the abovesaid Henry be restored to everything that he lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment etc.