Prohibition/Premunire 1350-1359

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.

1350:

H1350 A: Various royal letters concerning action against those obtaining church court processes to obtain provisions to English benefices. [1] rcp

E1350 A: Error. Cornwall. (23 Edward III). Quare non admisit. Rex v. John, bishop of Exeter, concerning the presentation of Richard de Eccleshale to the church of Suthill, which presentation had been recovered against Ralph, baron of Stafford. [2]

E1350 B: Wiltshire. Rex v. Roger de Shipbroke provisor of the prebend of Adeford in the Salisbury church. [3]

E1350 D: Sussex. Rex (and Robert de Mildenhale) v. Master Walter Geste. John, bishop of Exeter had the right to collate to a prebend in the free royal chapel of Bosham. When the bishop's temporalities came into the king's hands, Geste obtained a collation from another other than the king and procured church court processes contrary to the king's right and his prohibition. [4], [5], [6], [7] rcp

T1350 A: Cornwall. Rex v. John, bishop of Exeter. Quare impedit, further inquiry concerning the archdeaconry of Cornwall. [8] rcp

T1350 B: Devon. Rex v. John, bishop of Exeter. Quare non admisit, further inquiry concerning the church of Suthill. [9] rcp

M1350 A: London. Rex v. Roger de Shipbroke. Although the king had recovered the presentation to the prebend of Axford in the church of Blessed Mary of Salisbury by reason of the vacancy of the bishopric and the king issued prohibitions, Shipbroke procured church court processes in violation of the prohibitions. [10], [11], [12] rcp

H1351 A: Cornwall. Rex v. John de Harewell. The king had recovered the presentation to the archdeaconry of Cornwall and Harewell was prohibited from attempting anything to undermine the judgment. He procured church court processes. [13] rcp

H1351 A: Northamptonshire. Rex v. John, bishop of Lincoln. Quare non admisit. The king had recovered against Henry late bishop of Lincoln the presentation to the prebend of Nassington in Lincoln cathedral by reason of the vacancy of the bishopric. Afterwards the execution of the presentation was adjudicated against Simon de Sudbury because the judgment had not been executed. Thereon the king ordered the bishop to admit a suitable person, but he refused to admit Master Paul de Monte Florum cleric. [14]; Report that the bishop has installed Henry de Walton, presentee of the king; Henry proffers the king's letters patent for the position. Further process is terminated. [15] rcp

H1351 B: Yorkshire/London. Rex v. John Hervy de Ashburne. Edward II had recovered in common pleas the presentation to the treasury of St Peter, York by reason of the vacancy of the archbishopric against William archbishop of York. That judgment was not executed, and the post is currently vacant, and the king has conferred the position on John de Wynewyke, who has been admitted and installed. The king prohibited all and sundry from doing anything to undermine the appointment, but Hervy obtained church court processes. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] rcp

H1351 C: Cornwall. Rex v. Robert Mounteyne de Exeter, William Pile chaplain, Robert Pile chaplain, John Harewell, and John de Uphill. The king had recovered the the presentation to the archdeaconry of Cornwall by divers writs; John de St Paul had lately held the position, and the king had the presentation by reason of the seizure of the temporalities of the bishop of Exeter. The king had prohibited anyone from undermining that recovery, but they had procured church court processes anyway. [23] rcp Related.[24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Petition to the king by Nicholas de Neuton on behalf of Thomas David and John de Uphill, clerics. [29], [30]. See also M1360 B of prohibition/premunire processes for 1360-1380. rcp See also [31] rcp

M1351 A: London (for various counties). Rex v. Nicholas de Hethe. Trial of Hethe, now in prison, for securing various church processes concerning prebend in various dioceses and for importing papal bulls. He confessed and is remitted to the Tower of London until the king decides otherwise. [32] rcp

H1352 A: Shropshire. Richard de Derby parson of Hodenet v. John de Watenhull de Eliswode, Hugh de Wylaston, and Richard de Marchmule. Although Derby had recovbered against the Abbot of Shrewsbury the presentation to the church of Hodenet that looked to the king for a presentation by virtue of the vacancy of Shrewsbury Abbey and the king had presented him, and although the king had prohibited all and singular from undermining that judgment, Nicholasde Hethe asserted that he should have the position by an apostolic provision, Hethe then in the king's chancery swore that he would not proceed against Derby in the papal court or elsewhere, still the defendants together with that Nicholas de Hethe, Peter de Sandford, Roger de Wylaston, Thomas de Hodenet, William Dawesone de Prees, John de Burghale, Edith de Loskefford de Hodenet, William Whitheved, Henry Aleyn, and Hugh Sumpter de Hodenet proceeded with armed force to that church and took various grains and cloths worth 100 p.s. and procured various processes prejudicial to the king in an attempt to remove Derby from the church. The defendants here pleaded not guilty and were sent back to the Marshalsea, where they died.[33] rcp

H1352 B: Yorkshire. Rex v. John, prior of Malton. John de St Ivo chaplain had impleaded the prior concerning a trespass in king's bench. The prior alleged that the chaplain had thus defamed him and drew him into court Christian against the king's prohibition. [34] rcp

H1352 C: Yorkshire. Rex v. Bartholomew de Stanlake cleric. The king had recovered the presentation to the prebend of Hull Deverel in the collegiate church of Heghtredesbury against Raynold de filiis Ursi dean of the church of St Mary of Salisbury. The king prohibited anything that would undermine the judgment, but Bartholomew procured processes anyway. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] rcp

E1352 A: Norfolk. Rex v. Master Hugh de Elmestowe cleric and Master William de Atterton. The king had recovered his presentations to Forncett and Lopham against Simon de Segrave. The prohibited all and sundry from doing anything to the contrary, but the defendants procured church courts processes. [40],[41], [42], [43] rcp

E1352 B: Shropshire. Rex v. Edmund le Botiller parson of Wemme, Richard de Wych chaplain, Bartholomew parson of Whitchurche, Hugh de Groyby vicar of Prees, John vicar of Great Ercall, John Coke parson of Newport, Richard Pestour de Newport chaplain, Thomas vicar of Drayton in Hales, John Pyche chaplain, John son of Thomas son of Richard de Prees chaplain, Roger de Codyngton vicar of Welynton, and Richard de Opton chaplain. The king had recovered his presentation to Hodenet against the Abbot of Shrewsbury and had prohibited all and singular from doing anything to the contrary. The defendants procured ecclesiastical court processes to undermine the judgment. [44], [45] rcp

T1352 A: Essex. Rex v. John de Radeclyve chaplain. The king had recovered the presentation to Chesterford against John Segrave and had issued a prohibition; Radeclyve procured ecclesiastical processes to undermine the judgment. [46], [47], [48], [49] rcp

M1352 A: Yorkshire. Rex v. John, prior of Malton. John de St. Ivo chaplain sued the prior for trespass in king's bench. The prior than sued in court Christian for defamation on account of that suit, and continued the suit after a prohibition. [50] rcp

T1354 A: London. Rex v. Simon de Melcotes chaplain. While a plea pended in common pleas between the king and the Abbot of Peterborough in quare impedit concerning the presentation to the church of Brynghirst and another quare impedit there between the king and Simon de Melcotges for the same thing, during which Simon was prohibited from doing anything to impede, Simon procured ecclesiastical processes. [51], [52] rcp

M1354 A: London. Rex v. William de Overton. William de Overton in 1352 obtained ecclesiastical court processes to undermine the king's presentation to Fenstanton, which the king had recovered in common pleas against John de Segrave knight and William de Overton cleric. [53] rcp

M1354 B: Leicestershire. Quare impedit (invoking Provisors). Rex v. Simon Josep de Millecotes. Adam de Boothby late abbot of Peterborough was seised of the advowson of Bringhurst and presented Thomas Welton de Ashele cleric, who was admitted. The abbot died in the reign of Edward III and then Thomas died on June 12 1349, so that the church was vacant. Simon Josep by color of a papal provision made to him intruded himself after the month next after the vacancy of the church. That intrusion was not allowed according to the constitution of Provisors unless he accepted he accepted it within a month from the time of the vacancy. Josep in fact accepted it on 13 July 1349 and not before. Thus Josep occupied the church by intrusion until the temporalities of the abbacy came into the king's hands by the death of a certain Henry late abbot, so that it pertains to the king now to present, and Josep impedes. Joseph did not admit the factual basis of the king's claim and argued that Provisors allowed him to accept within a month of his notice of the vacancy of the church, not a month after the actual vacancy began. The king's attorney then added that Thomas had died on his parish and Josep had been in the county. They came to issue on whether Simon had accepted within a month of his predecessor's death. On 13 February 1355 the king sent a letter patent to the court confirming Josep in his position because he had been assured that Josep had just title, had been justly in possession for three years, and had not secured ecclesiastical court processes against the king's presentation; the king also revoked his own presentation. [54], [55] rcp

  • M1355 A: Rex v. John bishop of Hereford, on the allegation that he had violated royal prohibition and excommunicated all who had violated his parks and refused to revoke the excommunication, although that jurisdiction is royal. Jury verdict against the bishop and adjourned for judgment. [56], [57] rcp
  • M1356 A: Premunire. Middlesex. Rex v. William de Corbrigge, Thomas Michel, and Robert Maunell. [58] rcp
  • E1357 A: Premunire. London. Rex v. Master Simon de Sagio, Roger de Shipbroke cleric, John Sperman cleric, William Woderove cleric, and Thomas de Cestre cleric. Concerning the king's free chapel of Shrewsbury, of which Thomas de Baddeby was dean. [59] rcp
  • M1357 A: Premunire (with some similarity to prohibition). London. Thomas de Seton knight (qui tam) v. Lucy late the wife of Robert de Coksyde and William de Langeton notary. Lucy was already in prison. [60], pleading: [61] & [62]: Thomas accused Lucy of citing him to answer her in Roman court over lands and goods worth 3,500 ps.; he alleged damages of 10,000 ps. Lucy pleaded that right after the death of Robert de Cokside her late husband she took a vow of chastity in the presence of many and would have taken the oath before the ordinary except that she was detained by grave sickness. At that point she was assigned many goods as the purpart by church law of Robert's goods. She also held lands: some in dower and others at term of life and some heritably. Thomas, attracted more by the wealth than by marriage, beat and imprisoned her and married her against her will. Lucy maintained that she escaped as soon as she could and immediately went to the bishop of Durham to complete her oath of chastity. Concerning the injuries she received from Thomas, she appealed from the bishop to Rome. By his procurator Thomas asked for her to be delivered to him as his wife, whereas Lucy claimed that she persisted in her oath of chastity and that the marriage should be dissolved. Thomas accepted the jurisdiction of the Roman court. Thomas was thus cited to appear. But because Thomas had her goods and had occupied her lands by reason of the marriage, she had no money to support herself, so her plea for support is the plea here complained of. She proceeded by the testimony of witnesses to proceed each of the allegations, and Thomas defaulted, so that she prevailed by definitive sentence, with the divorce being the substantive case and the rest being accessory issues. The marriage was thus dissolved and she was awarded damages to be paid by a certain day, and Thomas accepted that he would pay. He did not pay and thus incurred a sentence of major excommunication. Thomas then appealed, but his appeal was ruled false and frivolous and his excommunication was promulgated in London. Thus everything she did was to dissolve the marriage so that she could fulfil her vow of chastity; the divorce was within ecclesiastical jurisdiction and everything else was accessory. Thomas put his original allegations forward again and asked for a jury. The jury delivered its verdict for Thomas. Lucy immediately declared that the justices and jurors were false, thus in contempt of the crown. Thomas recovered his damages, and Lucy was committed to the Fleet. rcp
  • H1358 A: Middlesex. Rex v. William Corbrigge, Thomas Michel, and Robert Maunyel. Premunire (similar to prohibition) for drawing William de Rodyngton of Leicester outside the realm concerning a lay fee. [63] rcp
  • T1358 A: Cambridgeshire. Richard Fint(qui tam) v. Master John Swynesheved and Master Roger de Sutton. Citation of the crown's control over felonies and wrongs against instruments brought in from abroad. Defendants brought into the realm many letters and instruments whereby Richard was excommunicated. Defendants received the instruments in 1358. They concerned Richard's coming by great distraint before the king's justices at Cambridge in 1355 in a case about a wrong done to Blanch late the wife of Thomas Wake de Lydel by Thomas, bishop of Ely and others. Damages of 1,000 ps were alleged. Sutton came in this term and confessed; the plaintiff recovered the alleged damages and later acknowledged that he had been satisfied. Swynesheved pleaded not guilty and was mainperned, but then defaulted. [64] rcp
  • T1358 B: Huntingdonshire. General prohibition to ecclesiastical officials not to allow defamation actions against Blanch Wake and the jurors who before justices in Huntingdonshire indicted those who had wronged Blanch. [65] rcp
  • T1358 C: Cambridgeshire. Richard Fint (qui tam) v. Master John Thurston, Master John de Dene, Master Robert Whiteby, Master John de Swynesheved, Walter vicar of Elin, Master John de Merton parson of Ellesworth, Master Robert de Sutton cleric, Master Roger de Sutton, John Botomer vicar of Wisbech, and Brother Henry Kirkeby of the order of the Brothers Preachers of Cambridge, and Master Thomas de Elteslee sr, and Richard vicar of St Clement, Cambridge. Premunire for receiving imported documents and excommunicating Fint for not appearing in church court. [66], [67], [68]. See (?) for Thurston [69], [70] rcp
  • T1358 D: Huntingdonshire. John Tylly knight (qui tam) v. Robert de Swynesen parson of Hemmyngford Abbots, Master William Pershay de Spaldewyke parson of Wolle, Henry parson of Fletton, Walter vicar of Elin, John de Giddyng parson of Grosham, Roger de Sutton in Holand cleric, and John de Wysbech chaplain. Premunire for receiving prejudicial documents from abroad and citing Tylly to appear abroad ane excommunicating him for non-appearance. [71], [72], [73] rcp v. Richard de Eccleshale parson of Potton and John Cappe chaplain for same. [74] rcp
  • T1358 E: Buckinghamshire. Rex v. John, bishop of Lincoln. Premunire for receiving imported prejudicial documents and on their basis citing people to appear outside the realm. [75], [76] rcp
  • T1358 F: Northamptonshire. Andrew de Kellishill (qui tam) v. Master Ralph de Waldegrave, Master William de Houton parson of Pughteslee, Thomas Danneye vicar of Peterborough, John de Arneston vicar of Fotheringay, John vicar of Wellingborough, Richard Charles vicar of St Giles of Northampton, John parson of Wykedyne dean of Preston, John vicar of Wolaston dean of Hegham, Richard vicar of Bridgestoke dean of Weldon, John vicar of Wellingborough, Nicholas dean of Daventry, and John vicar of Brakkele. Premunire for receiving prejudicial documents from abroad and thereon fulminating excommunations. [77], [78] rcp
  • M1358 A: Huntingdonshire. John Sturdy de Eryth (qui tam) v. Richard parson of Bluntesham. Premunire for receipt of prejudicial instruments from abroad and on their basis fulminating excommunications. [79] rcp
  • M1358 B: Buckinghamshire. John de Flete cleric (qui tam) v. Thomas Hesel cleric and John his brother and Nicholas Passemer chaplain. Premunire for receiving prejudicial documents from abroad to have plaintiff cited outside the realm. They received the documents 19 July 1358 and procured the plaintiff's excommunication. [80] rcp. with a London margination: [81] rcp. with a Middlesex margination: [82], [83]. rcp
  • M1358 C: Sussex. Rex v. mainpernors of John Hauk. Not really premunire. Juliana prioress of Rusper had sued John Hauk for a trespass until Hauk surrendered to the marshalsea and found sufficient mainpernors that he would not draw the prioress into foreign court. John Sampson notary, acting for Hauk, nonetheless had the prioress and the jurors in the case cited to appear in Roman court against the terms of the mainprise. [84], [85] rcp
  • M1358 D: London. Rex v. Geoffrey de Stokton chaplain. Contrary to a specific royal prohibition, Stokton left the realm to draw a case into foreign court. [86] rcp
  • M1358 E: London. Rex v. John de Burton parson of Hagworthingham, notary. Importing bulls and citations from abroad that undermined royal judgments. [87], [88] rcp
  • E1359 A: Lincolnshire. Rex v. John de Bradefeld cleric. Attempt to import documents prejudicial to king's court judgments. [89]; Simon de Geynesburgh cleric and Thomas vicar of Frodingham were in possession of the church (the former of the church, the latter of the vicarage); the church is in royal patronage. Defendant resorted to cited them on 24 August 32 Edward III to appear in Roman court to undermine royal rights. Defendant denied procuring instruments or citing. Jury summoned. [90] rcp
  • E1359 B: Rutland. Rex v. William Penfax vicar of Ockham. Received instruments from abroad prejudicial to king's court judgments and fulminated excommunications based on them. [91] rcp
  • E1359 C: Norfolk. Rex v. Edmund Blomville parson of Brome. Imported instruments from abroad prejudicial to king's court judgments and fulminated excommunications based on them. [92] rcp
  • E1359 D: Kent. Rex v. William Sare vicar of Renham. Attempt to import prejudicial instruments. [93]; details: he cited the prior of Leeds and others to appear in foreign court for the crime of incarcerating him. Put by mainprise, defaulted, and then acquitted by jury verdict: [94] rcp
  • T1359 A: London. Rex v. John de Tregontres. Imported prejudicial instruments. [95], [96], [97] rcp
  • M1359 A: Rex v. William de Ellerton cleric, Master Thomas de Bridekirk, John de Bernyngham notary, and William Smith de Escrik. They attempted to undermine the king's court judgment in Rex v. John Bardolf de Wyrmegeye concerning the church of Escrick by drawing the dispute into foreign court. Judgment that they be put outside the king's protection. A carefully drawn enrollment. [98], [99], [100], [101], [102] rcp
  • M1359 B: Rex v. William de Thoraldby lately canon of the priory of Kirkham. Importing and notifying prejudicial instruments from abroad. [103](two entries) rcp
  • M1359 C: Rex v. Robert de Preston de Derby. Importing and notifying prejudicial instruments. [104], [105] rcp
  • M1359 D: Lincolnshire. Chapter of Blessed Mary of Lincoln (qui tam) v. Master Simon de Brisle dean of Blessed Mary of Lincoln and John de Wymundham chaplain. Writ was based on the custom of the realm instead of statute; defendants were seeking to draw plaintiff into foreign court when a case of quare impedit was pending between them in king's court. (vacated:) [106], [107], [108], [109], [110],Damages: [111] rcp
Personal tools