Prohibition/Premunire 1346-1347

From Rpalmer

Jump to: navigation, search

This page will be segmented when it gets too long. Add information by clicking on "edit" above. Items should begin with term (if available) and year together with a letter to allow for distinguishing subsequent documents in the same year and term. The designation should be in bold. Thus an entry will appear as H1285 A:. Text thereafter should indicate what the document concerns. The link to the document should be a copied and pasted full web address (http:// . . .) surrounded by single brackets ( [ ] ). Leave a line between entries. The 25-year segments begin with a vertical bar and end with a vertical bar minus. Avoid other more complex codes. If you want to append a translation, provide a completely unique address surrounded by double brackets: ProPre H1275 A Tr. Such an address indicates sector and year, the A indicates it is the first document entered for that year and term, the Tr indicates it is a translation. That will constitute a unique address. DO NOT attempt to re-order documents within a term to achieve a perfect chronology, since it will invalidate other references to re-named documents. A document written in Notepad will copy into the site without any complicating code. Avoid more complicated coding. Check your entry before saving by clicking on "show preview below (return here by using the back arrow); before leaving the document, remember to save the page.

1346

  • H1346 A: Yorkshire. The king had recovered in common pleas against the prior of Durham the presentation to the church of Siggeston then vacant; he then presented John de Halnaby. John was canonically admitted and instituted. This suit alleges that Thomas de Carleton, Henry de Foxton, Hugh de Fletham, John de Manfeld, William de Feryby, William Rose, Adam de Kirkeby, and Gilbert de Kirkeby in 1346 with armed power and in warlike mode intruded into the church and expelled John and procured ecclesiastical processes prejudicial to the king and against the royal prohibition. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] rcp; [6], [7], [8] rcp
  • H1346 B: Jury between the king and Master John de O and Simon de Sudbury, commissaries of the bishop of Norwich [and companion case against the bishop of Norwich]: whether the commissaries, to collect the bishop's tax of 12d to the mark on spiritual goods, had threatened the Abbot of Bury St Edmunds to make him denounce the abbot and convent of Ramsey already excommunicated and had threatened the abbot of St Edmunds with greater excommunication if he did not pay the same tax both before and after the king's prohibition delivered to them. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] rcp
  • H1346 C: Kent. Rex v. Richard Frere de Shirton parson of All Saints, Gracechurch Street, Master Hugh de Horton notary, Roger Bolwas, John Shanke, Robert Bylane, Robert de Hokyndon, and John Tannere de Earde. The goods of outlaws belong to the crown as forfeit. John de Hodeston (whom John Sayer de Southbemflet had impleaded in king's bench for trespassory rape, for which Hodeston was outlawed in the London hustings returned into chancery), pretending that he had been staying abroad, drew Robert, abbot of Lesnes into court Christian for a sum of money and disquieted him with ecclesiastical censures. The king prohibited everyone from paying Hodeston and from undermining the king's courts. Defendants compelled the abbot to pay and drew him into church court. [14] rcp
  • 1346 D: Cambridgeshire. Rex v. Simon, bishop of Ely, John de Colby, and Henry de Harwedon. Originally by inquest in chancery. The king had recovered the presentation to Hadenham. Defendants procured processes and bulls in the Roman court and brought them into England. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] rcp
  • H1346 E: London. Rex v. Lambert de Paulesholt cleric. The king had recovered the presentation to the prebend of Chalk in the church of St Edith of Wilton by reason of the vacancy of the abbacy of Wilton in the time of Edward I against Constance late abbess of Wilton. The king presented to the bishop of Salisbury his cleric John de Chestrefeld and put all and sundry under a prohibition. Paulesholt drew him into a plea outside the realm to undermine the king's court judgment. [20],[21] Three cases: The one against Paulesholt, then cases against William de Hamme, William Beneger, William de Mulleborn, William de Latton, and Thomas Cutel notary and against Master Richard de Thurmerton, William de Weston, William de Saxeby, and Master Richard de Netherhaven. rcp v. Paulesholt [22], [23] rcp
  • H1346 F: London. Rex and John de Askham v. John Crokhill. The king had often had proclaimed against obtaining papal documents. Crokhill nevertheless obtained a number of bulls: (1) a bull granted to Crokhill on the benefice to the presentation or collation of the prior of Montacute, which was in the king's hand; (2) a second in which Crokhill informed the pope and his court that William de Hathelsay cleric falsely informed the king that the king had the right to present to the vicary of Ermington, Devon, whereby Hathelsay was presented and installed so that the pope committed the case to Master Divo de Urbino to hear and determine; Master Divo indicated that the bishop of Exeter had wrongly denied the vicary to Crokhill and voided the installation of Hathlesay; (3) a bull indicating that Crokhill had obtained the excommunication of the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Exeter, all the canons of the church of Exeter, William de Hathelsay vicar, John Stonore knight, and Walter de Stretthelegh, other parishioners of Ermington and all deniers and rebels against Crokhill who aided or counselled against his right; (4) a bull that Master Divus had awarded Crokhill as damages 60 gold florins against the bishop of Exeter and others; (5)a fifth bull indicating that Crokhill had obtained the excommunications of Hugh Burel and John his brother and many others unless they absolved Crokhill of an obligation for 200 p.s. enrolled in the common pleas, which bull was sent to the dean of the church of Exeter for execution to be made in the fourth year of Clement; (6) a bull that Master Divus at the suit of Crokhill gave sentence against the bishop of Exeter that he unjustly instituted the king's cleric; he also imposed silence on the king's cleric and that he had prosecuted unjustly; he also invested Crokhill and nullified the king's letter in favor of Hathelsay, removed Hathelsay and invested Crokhill and condemned Hathelsay in the fruits of the vicary since his installation. Crokhill confessed, but he denied that he had intended to do anything to the king's damage. He was committed to the marshalsea. Then, later, Crokhill was asked whether he had anything to say why judgment should not be rendered, and he said that the king had no right to appoint to that vicary, since the collation belonged solely to the pope. He was condemned to damages of 500 p.s. and sent back to the marshalsea. [ http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/KB27no343/aKB27no343fronts/IMG_8049.htm], [24], [25], ?[26] rcp
  • H1346 G: Suffolk. Presented that Robert Alred de Cotton cleric was by papal bull a provisor; he entered the the church of St Peter of Stowmarket at vicar. The Abbot of St Osith as patron presented William Foot to the church, but Robert held it challenged him by virtue of the provision. Thomas de Batisford then sheriff of Suffolk in 1344 at the instance of the abbot and William maintained Williams complailnt in this part. Thomas, John de Aldham, Robert de Berton, John son of that Robert, Richard Sore, Thomas de Nedham chaplain, Thomas Chaundeler, John Mareys, John Padmere, Eustace de Henleye, Stephen Cash then outlawed and many others then entered the church and held it until William Foot came. Thomas de Batisford, the sheriff, procured Henry de Helyngton, Robert de Berton, John de Stouwe, Nicholas Kynge and many others by false conspiracy to indict Robert Alred before the king's justices for a false cause. [27], [28], [29] rcp
  • H1346 H: Warwickshire. Rex v. Robert Walteres de Iccombe cleric, Leonard de Lucy parson of Chiriton, Elias de Iccombe chaplain, Walter Dene de Shutteford, William Leonardesprest deLucy, John atte Grene de Magna Compton cleric, Walter de Dorne de Shesencote, Walter de Trowell de Shesencote, Richard de Rotecote, William atte Grene de Parva Compton chaplain, John le Frend de Breilles, John Laurence de Chiriton, John Muleward de Chiriton, and Adam Perkyns de Stourton. (Note that there are other cases with overlapping parties about Little Compton in 1347.) The king had recovered his presentation to Little Compton by reason of the priory of Deerhurst by reason of the war and had presented Phillip to Phillip to Alcester to the bishop of Worcester and issued a prohibition to the defendants. THe defendants violated the prohibition. [30] rcp
  • H1346 I: Yorkshire. Outlawry of Master Robert de Thresk. The king had recovered the presentation to the prebend of Thorpe in the church of Howden, Yorkshire, and the archbishop had installed Master Ralph de Blaykeston cleric. Master Robert de Thresk then drew Blaykeston into foreign court. [31], [32], [33], [34] and Blaykeston v. John Gillyng parson of Quixle. [35], [36] rcp


  • E1346 A: Quare non admisit. Wiltshire. Rex v. Robert, bishop of Salisbury. The king had recovered his presentation to the prebend of Chalk in the church of St Osith of Wilton by reason of the abbey of Wilton that was vacant and in the hand of Edward I against the Constance then abbess; the judgment is still not executed. The now abbess appeared by scire facias and alleged that the judgment had been executed in the person of William de Raundes. A jury found that the judgment had not been executed, so that a writ went to the bishop of Salisbury that he admit John de Chesterfeld, but he refused. [37],[38] rcp
  • E1346 B: Suffolk. Rex v. William, bishop of Norfolk. The bishop excommunicated Richard Freysell for delivering a prohibition to the bishop concerning a pending case about the abbey of Bury St Edmunds; the excommunication included anyone aiding or assisting the prohibition. [39], [40], [41] rcp
  • E1346 C: London. William de Emeldon cleric (qui tam) v. Thomas atte Crouche spurrier, and William his brother, John Fourbour, Richard le Spurrier de Fleetstreet London, Matthew Frenshe, Thomas de Emmidesham de Fleetstreet sommersaddlemaker, Master James de Multon, Master John Thurstan, Simon Bythole, Thomas de Kendale parson of St Augustines by Austinsgate of St Paul, London. The king had recovered his presentation to the prebend of Howden against Master James de Multon and John prior of Durham and Master Edmund de Haukesgarth; he presented William de Emeldon. The king prohibited all and sundry from undermining the judgment. Defendants in the presence of the king and chancellor while the great seal was open and the chancellor was sealing writs and were working with others of the king's council on the expediting of the king's business, assaulted Emeldon and besieged him until they made processes to draw him to appear outside the realm. [42], [43] rcp

E1346 D: London. Rex v. Nicholas atte Heth. The king had recovered in common pleas the presentation to the church of Hodynet against the abbot of Shrewsbury and the king prohibited anyone from undermining the judgment. Nicholas nevertheless procured church court process to challenge the judgment. [44], [45], [46], [47] rcp


  • T1346 A: Devon. Robert Kirkham v. John, bishop of Exeer, John Fiz, John atte Wode, William Locome, John Fynamour, Richard de Gatepathe sr, Richard de Coppeshull, John de Stoutorre, Michael de Ayschlegh, John son of Walter Horrigge, Richard de Gatepathe jr, John de Blakalre, William de Hosecombe, Peter de Clyfford, JOhn Stokke, Benedict de Paston, Richard de Gummeshale, John de Clyfford, Geoffrey le Chaumberleyn, and William Hervy. Trespass assault at Ashperton and taking of goods worth 100s in 1345. Plea of not guilty. [48] rcp Companion case brought by William Wyke; same reference, but pleaded more fully: Peter de Clyfford, Richard de Gummeshale, and John de Clyfford pleaded that William Wyke, Robert Kirkham, Elias Wilde, and John Dobyn had assaulted the bishop, whereon the hue and cry was raised. Wyke and the others fled to a house where they forcibly defended themselves against the bailiffs, constables and others of the town. These three defendants came in aid of the town officials until Wyke and the others submitted. Wyke rejoined that the four of them were delivered a prohibition and inhibition of the king to the bishop, whereon they beat and imprisoned him (Wyke). Companion case brought by Wylde. [49] rcp
  • M1346 B: Rex v. Henry Gurdon and Robert Boner. The king had recovered against the Prior of Crediton the presentation to the vicary of Harpford because the prior's temporalities were in the king's hand by reason of the war. The king presented John de Sibthorpe. The defendants entered the vicary and procured ecclesiastical processes. [50] rcp


1347

  • H1347A: Yorkshire. Rex v. Thomas de Carleton. The king had recovered the presentation to Sigston, Yorkshire, and prohibited all and singular from doing anything to the contrary, but Thomas with Henry de Foxton, Hugh de Fletham, John de Masfeld chaplain, William Fereby, William Rose, Adam de Kirkeby, and Gilbert de Kyrkeby intruded into the church with armed force and procured legal processes against John de Halneraby, the king's nominee, who had been canonically installed. [51], [52], [53]; jury summons of 24 jurors for the same factual allegations in E1348 [54], [55]
  • H1347C: Inquest on those notaries public who undermined the king's court by drawing personnel into court Christian outside the realm. The inquest returned that Peter de Normandeby notary public did thus by serving process on Edmund de Grymesby king's clerk in chancery on October 25, 19 Edward III for a case of quare impedit between Hugh le Despenser and Elizabeth his wife against John de Kellesey concerning the church of Barwe by Edmund's counsel. The citations were made in the presence of the king in Westminster Palace and in the presence of the justices of both benches hearing pleas during term. Exigent. [56]; [57]
  • H1347F: Kent. Alleged extortions in Canterbury ecclesiastical court by Thomas de Canterbury rector of Brookland and Master Peter Duraunt; necessity of prohibition. [58]
  • H1347G: Northamptonshire. Rex v. Simon Benet de Keten chaplain and John Benet his brother notary public his brother, (Robert atte Brigg de East Depping and John in Pyt de Langetoft): undermining king's court judgment concerning church of St Peter Stamford by suing in foreign court. [59], [60], [61] rcp


  • E1347 A: Worcestershire. Rex v. Thomas de Legh prior of Great Malvern, Brother Walter de Bradewas, Brother Thomas de Marlborough, Brother William de Bisheleye, and Brother Alexander de Gloucestre co-monks of the prior. The abbey of Westminster with all its appendant priories and cells by papal grant is free and exempt from all ordinary jurisdiction and immediately subject to the pope. The defendants ignored those privileges and also the peace established before Edward I and his council between the late bishop of Worcester on one side and R. then abbot of Westminster and William de Ledebury then prior of Great Malvern on the other side, a peace then confirmed by Edward I by his letters patent. They obtained a summons to appear before the abbots of Chester and Shrewsbury concerning a visitation to be made of the black monks in Worcestershire. [62], [63] rcp
  • E1347 C: London. The king had recovered in common pleas the presentment to the church of St Albans of Woodstreet, London against Brother John de Heton master of the Hospital of St James by Westminster. Jury to determine if Geoffrey de Heggesore cleric then intruded into the church and occupied it and still detains it. [64], [65] rcp [66], [67] rcp
  • E1347 D: Oxfordshire. Rex v. John, vicar of Banbury. Hugolinus de Adigheriis of Parma, an alien, was prebendary of Banbury, so that that the fruits of that prebend are in the king's hands. The king had William de Kelleseye take possession. John, however, procured sentences of excommunication on William Foweler, William de Perton, Henry de Brackele, John Lyndraper, John Harewell, and Richard Tywe de Banbury royal servants deputed to collect the fruits. [68] rcp


  • T1347 B: Devon. Rex v. Hugh de Seton, John de Holand, Laurence Goderiche, and John Vyse. The king recovered against the prior of Otterton the presentation to the vicary of Harford and in the king's hands by reason of the priory's being in the king's hand by reason of the war. The king presented John de Sibthorp cleric. Defendants procured church court processes to undermine the presentation. [ http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/KB27no349/aKB27no349fronts/IMG_3007.htm], [69], [70] rcp
  • T1347 C: Warwickshire. Rex v. Robert Walteres de Iccombe cleric, Walter Cole de Ilmyndon, Geoffrey Pygoun de Wellesbourne, Roger Baset de Sutton, and William Frankeleyn de Weston juxta Chiriton. The priory of Deerhurst was in the king's hand by reason of war, so that the king had the right to present to Little Compton. He presented Phillip de Alcester to the bishop of Worcester and issued a general prohibition, but defendants procured church court processes to undermine the judgment. [71] rcp
  • T1347 D: Hampshire. Rex v. Robert le Mareschal de Bedford cleric. Mareschal had procured at the Roman court church court processes to undermine the judgments in the king's court rendered on the presentation to the prebend of Middleton in the church of the Holy Cross in Wherwell. He was thereafter captured and brought before the king's council. He was thus sent to king's bench and committed to the marshalsea. The king presented Master Peter de Inkepenne. [72] rcp
  • T1347 E: Norfolk. Quare non admisit. Rex v. William, bishop of Norwich. The bishop did not admit Robert de Morton cleric to the church of Smallburgh looking to the abbot of St Benedict at Hulme. [73], [74] rcp


  • M1347 A: Norfolk. Scire facias on Error. Richard Freisell (qui tam) v. Bishop of Norwich. The error case concerned the bishop's excommunication of Freisell for delivering to the bishop of writ of prohibition. The scire facias to the bishop was for him to object to the king's exercise of the collation to the archdeaconry of Norfolk, since the bishop's temporalities were in the king's hands.[75] Includes rendition of king's order to proceed to judgment in the case under review. [76]; further same term [ http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/KB27no350/aKB27no350fronts/IMG_3525.htm]rcp
  • M1347 B: Suffolk. Scire facias on Error. Richard Freisell (qui tam) v. Bishop of Norwich. The error case concerned the bishop's excommunication of Freisell for delivering to the bishop of writ of prohibition. The scire facias to the bishop was for him to object to the king's exercise of the collation to the archdeaconry of Suffolk (granted now to Michael de Northburgh), since the bishop's temporalities were in the king's hands.[77], [78] rcp
  • M1347 C: Norfolk. Further execution of the king's right from the seizure of the bishop of Norwich's temporalities in regard to the prebend of Blofield. [79] rcp
  • M1347 D: Norfolk. Further execution of the king's right from the seizure of the bishop of Norwich's temporalities in regard to the church of Great Massingham. [80] rcp
  • M1347 E: London. Rex v. John Baroun chaplain. The king had recovered the presentation to the vicary of Kingston upon Thames and presented William de Burstall to William, bishop of Winchester. Broun violated the supporting prohibition and impeded the judgment in different ways. [81] rcp
  • M1347 G: Rex v. Masters William de la Pomeray, Walter Botriaux, William de Crouthorn, Richard Norreys, John de la Pomeray, and Nicholas his brother, Richard Trebecles chaplain, and Gregory his brother, John Blakeforth, Odo Paston, John Dru de Tregony, Stephen Loveday, Richard Loveday, Richard Dun, Thomas Dun, John Helston, William Cary, Peter Pampilion, John North skinner of Exeter, Thomas Cameleford of Exeter, Richard Leard, William Billihames, Thomas Sowy, Roger vicar of Elerky, and James his brother, Nicholas Beye, Robert Trembeth, Roger Gody, Thomas Cribenou de Tregony, Henry Gillon from St Clement by Truro, and John Hervy. The king had recovered the presentation to Lanryhorn against John Lercedeken knight. The defendants procured ecclesiastical court processes against the king's prohibition. [82], [83]
  • M1347 I: Gloucestershire. Phillip de Alcestre cleric (qui tam) v. Robert Walteres de Icombe cleric and Roger Basset de Sutton. By consideration of the court the king had recovered the presentation to Little Compton by reason that the temporalities of the Priory of Deerhurst were in the king's hand because of the war. The king presented Alcestre to the bishop of Worcester. The defendants procured ecclesiastical court processes against the prohibition. [84] rcp
  • M1347 J: Hampshire. Rex v. Abbess of Wherwell. King had recovered against the abbess the presentment to the prebend of to the prebend of Middleton in the church of Holy Cross of Wherwell and then had presented Master Peter de Inkepenne and prohibited Roger le Mareschal of Bedford cleric from doing anything to prejudice that presentation. Peter, however, obtained citations, provocations, appeals, and processes and impediments in Wherwell and elsewhere. [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93] rcp
  • M1347 K: Suffolk. Scire facias to William, bishop of Norwich, as to whether there are any objections to the king's presentation to the vicary of Mendlesham in the bishop's patronage that is in the hands of the king by the seizure of the bishop's temporalities. [94] rcp
  • M1347 L: Norfolk. Scire facias to William, bishop of Norwich, as to whether there any objections to the king's presentation to the church of Beighton in the bishop's patronage that is in the hands of the king by the seizure of the bishop's temporalities. [95] rcp
  • M1347 M: Suffolk. Scire facias to William, bishop of Norwich, as to whether there any objections to the king's presentation to the church of Sapiston in the bishop's patronage that is in the hands of the king by the seizure of the bishop's temporalities. [96], [97] rcp
  • M1347 N: Lincolnshire. Rex v. John de Wakefield vicar of Middle Rasen. Against the custom of the realm he drew the prior of Drax outside the realm to answer concerning lay fee. [98], [99] rcp
Personal tools