Trematon CD M1571 Tr
The Lady Queen sent to her well-beloved and faithful Edward Hastings knight of the illustrious Order of the Garter, lord Hastings of Loughborough and chief seneschal of his duchy of Cornwall as well as of his fee and manor of Trematon Castle or his deputy or lieutenant there his writ close in these words:
Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to her well-beloved and faithful Edward Hastings knight of the illustrious Order of the Garter lord Hastings of Loughborough and chief seneschal of our duchy of Cornwall as well as of the fee and manor of Trematon Castle or his deputy or lieutenant there, 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 manor without writ according to the custom of the same manor between Roger Luce and Roger Browne in a plea of debt as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Roger Browne as we have received from his complaint, we, wanting the error if there was any to be corrected in due manner and full and speedy justice to be done to the abovesaid parties in this part, order you that, if judgment has been rendered thereof, then send distinctly and openly the record and process of the abovesaid plea with all things touching them to us under your seal, and this writ, so that we have them at one month after Easter wherever we shall be in England so that, the abovesaid record and process having been inspected, we may make to be done further for the correction of that error that which of right and according to the law and custom of our realm of England should be done. Tested me myself at Westminster June 15 in the 13th year of our reign [June 15, 1571].
The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ follow in these words:
The manor of Trematon. The court of the lady queen held there before Edward Hastings knight of the illustrious Order of the Garter, lord Hastings of Loughborough, chief seneschal of the lady queen of her duchy of Cornwall June 27 in the 12th year of the reign of the Lady Elizabeth now queen of England [June 27, 1570] according to the custom of the same court used and approved from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary etc.
At this court there comes Roger Luce of St. Stephens by Saltash in the county of Cornwall in his proper person and complains against Roger Browne of Boyton in the abovesaid county merchant in a plea of debt. And then and there he found pledges to prosecute his complaint abovesaid. And thereon according to the custom of the same court it was ordered to the reeve and tithingman of the abovesaid court to attach the abovesaid Roger Browne by his goods and chattels to be at the next court to be held there after the present date. And thereby the abovesaid Roger Browne was attached by a horse of a price of 100s to be at the court of the abovesaid manor as it was ordered to him. And the abovesaid Roger Browne in his proper person then and there appeared, whereon the abovesaid Roger Luce according to the custom of the manor narrated against the abovesaid Roger [IMG 0151] Browne of Boyton in the abovesaid county merchant in a plea that he render to him £6 13s4d of the lawful money of England that he owes him and unjustly detains. And whereof the same plaintiff in his proper person says that the abovesaid Roger Browne on February 28 in the 12th year of the reign of our Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc. [February 28, 1570], here at “Boraton” within the jurisdiction etc., by his bill sealed with a seal by the same Roger Browne’s hands and subscribed, the date of which is the same day and year abovesaid, granted that he owed to the aforementioned Roger Luce the said £6 13s4d to be paid to the same Roger Luce from the day of the sailing of the said Roger and Roger to a certain castle called Penryn in the abovesaid county on the third day, nevertheless the abovesaid Roger Browne although often asked on the same third day at the entry of the abovesaid castle and divers other times from the same day has not yet rendered the abovesaid £6 13s4d to the said plaintiff but has wholly refused to render them to him and still refuses and unjustly detains, wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of 10s. And thereof he produces his suit and proffers here in court the abovesaid bill that attests the abovesaid debt in manner and form abovesaid.
And the abovesaid Roger Browne in his proper person comes and defends force and injury when etc., and whatever etc. And each and all manner advantages being saved to himself, he seeks thereof day to emparl thereof. And it is granted to him etc.
And thereon day thereof is given to the abovesaid parties before the aforementioned seneschal until the next court of the lady queen before the aforementioned seneschal to be held there on July 18 then next following [July 18, 1570], viz., to the aforementioned Roger Browne to emparl and then to answer etc.
The court of the lady queen held there before Edward Hastings knight of the illustrious Order of the Garter, lord Hastings of Loughborough, chief seneschal of the lady queen of her duchy of Cornwall on July 18 in the 12th year of the reign of the Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc. [July 18, 1570], according to the custom of the same court used and approved from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary etc.
At which certain court held there come both the abovesaid Roger Luce in his proper person and the abovesaid Roger Browne in his proper person. And the same Roger Browne defends force and injury when etc., and whatever etc., and says that he by reason of the abovesaid bill ought not to be burdened, because he says that the abovesaid bill whereof he the same defendant is impleaded by the abovesaid Roger Luce the younger is such that if the abovesaid defendant pay the aforementioned plaintiff one butt of wine, in English a butt of mamseye being the best and fullest of four butts, in English, of fower buttes, or pay the aforementioned plaintiff [IMG 1342] £6 13s4d of the good and lawful money of England in one whole sum from the third day after the abovesaid arming [sic: melius, sailing?] of the plaintiff and defendant at Penryn specified in the declaration of the abovesaid plaintiff that then that bill will be void and otherwise will remain in its full strength etc. And the abovesaid Roger Browne says that he appointed and delivered to the aforementioned plaintiff one butt of wine called a butt of mamseye being the best and fullest of 4 butts according to the tenor and effect of the abovesaid bill, which certain butt of wine called in English a butt of mamseye, the abovesaid plaintiff then and there admitted and received, and this he is ready to verify, wherefore he seeks judgment if the abovesaid plaintiff ought to have or maintain his abovesaid action against him etc.
And the abovesaid Roger Luce in his proper person comes and seeks thereof day to emparl and it is granted to him etc. And thereon day is given thereof to the abovesaid parties before the aforementioned seneschal at the next court of the lord queen to be held before the aforementioned seneschal on August 8 then next following, viz., to the aforementioned Roger Luce to emparl and then to answer etc.
At which certain next court of the said lady queen held there come both the abovesaid Roger Luce in proper person and the abovesaid Roger Browne in his proper person. And thereon the abovesaid Roger Luce says that he by anything alleged before ought not to be precluded from having his abovesaid action, because he says that the abovesaid Roger Browne did not appoint or deliver to the aforementioned plaintiff a butt of wine, in English called a butte of malmesey being the best and fullest of 4 butts according to the tenor of abovesaid bill, which he was supposed to pay and deliver to the same plaintiff. And he asks that this be inquired by the countryside. And the abovesaid Roger Browne similarly etc.
Therefore it is ordered to the aforementioned reeve and tithingman of the abovesaid court that he should make to come before the aforementioned seneschal at the next court of the said lady queen to be held there on August 29 then next following [August 29, 1570] 12 etc., by whom etc., and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. The same day is given to the abovesaid parties there etc.
At which certain next court of the said lady queen held before the aforementioned seneschal on the abovesaid August 29 [August 29, 1570] come both the abovesaid Roger Luce in his proper person and the aforementioned Roger Browne in his proper person; and the aforementioned reeve and tithingman of the abovesaid court returns the names of 12 etc., and the abovesaid writ served and executed in all things, and then and there it was ordered to the aforementioned reeve and tithingman of the abovesaid court that [IMG 1343] he have the bodies of the abovesaid jurors before the aforementioned seneschal at the next court of the said lady queen there on September 19 then next following [September 19, 1570] to make the abovesaid jury between the parties abovesaid concerning the abovesaid plea. The same day is given to the abovesaid parties there etc.
At which certain next court of the said lady queen held before the aforementioned seneschal there come both the abovesaid Roger Luce in his proper person and the abovesaid Roger Browne in his proper person, and the aforementioned reeve and tithingman of the abovesaid court returned the abovesaid writ served and executed in all things. And the jurors of the jury abovesaid, exacted, similarly come, who were chosen, tried, and sworn to tell the truth concerning the premisses, who on the their oath say that the abovesaid defendant owes the aforementioned plaintiff the abovesaid sum of £6 13s4d in manner and form as etc., and for damages 2s, and for the outlays and expenses 10s. Wherefore the abovesaid plaintiff seeks judgment. And because the court wants to advise itself further in this part, day further is given to the aforementioned Roger Luce until the next court of the said lady queen to be held before the aforementioned seneschal there on October 10 then next to come [October 10, 1570] to hear thereof their judgment etc.
At which certain court the abovesaid Roger Browne proffered the exception following, viz.,
cawses why iudgment ought not to be geven for Roger Luce the yonger within the mannour of Trematon against Roger Browne in a pleint of debt etc. Item fyrst, the declaracion is “queritur” wheras it should have byne “summonitus est” in all plees of debt, wherfore yf iudgment be geven herin erronius.
Item, thyssue ys whether a butt of malmesey were delivered the pleyntif by the defendant ye or not, & the jurie sworen have found & geven verdyt that the defendant did owe the pleyntif six poundes thyrtene shyllynges & foure pens which they not chardged to enquyre of, wherfore the verdith quyt varieth from ther yssue & therfore vicious & errnoyous,
which beinge manifest to the court as this ys, the judge of the court ought not to geve judgment uppon, for then most the courte erre & the danger therof ensueth uppon judice curie.
At which certain court comes the abovesaid Roger Luce in his proper person and because the aforementioned seneschal of the abovesaid court wants to advise himself further in this part, day further is given to the aforementioned Roger Luce until the next court of the lady queen to be held before the aforementioned seneschal there on the last day of October then next following [October 31, 1570] to hear his judgment etc.
At which certain court of the said lady queen held before the aforementioned seneschal there comes the abovesaid Roger Luce in his proper person, and because the aforementioned seneschal of the court wants to advise himself further in this part, day further is given to the aforementioned Roger Luce until the next court of the said lady queen to be held before the aforementioned seneschal there on November 21 then next following [November 21, 1570] to hear his judgment etc.
At which certain next court of the said lady queen held before the aforementioned seneschal there come both the abovesaid Roger Luce in his proper person and the abovesaid Roger Browne in his proper person, and then and there the abovesaid Roger Browne proffers the said lady queen’s writ of certiorari, which is allocated by the abovesaid court.
And at the court held there on December 12 then next following [December 12, 1570] before [IMG 0152] the aforementioned seneschal comes the abovesaid Roger Luce in his proper person and proffers the writ of the said lady queen de procedendo with a writ of the same lady queen de executione iudicii. Thereon at the same court it is granted that the abovesaid plaintiff recover against the abovesaid defendant his abovesaid debt found by the abovesaid inquisition in the abovesaid form as well as 42s9d adjudicated to the same plaintiff for his outlays and costs by the court there by his assent by way of increment, which certain [damages] in all amount to £8 16s1d, and the abovesaid defendant in mercy etc.
[margination:] Let the judgment be revoked
Afterwards, scilt., on Thursday next after the Octaves of St. Martin this same term before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid Roger Browne by Thomas Webbe his attorney, and he 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 in each action of debt affirmed or raised in any court of record the writ or precept for summoning the defendant ought to be adjudicated in the same action; on the abovesaid complaint against the same Roger Browne raised in the abovesaid form the precept of attachment and not of summoning the same Roger Browne was granted, as above appears of record, and thus manifestly it was erred.
Moreover, in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred for this, viz., that, whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid issue was joined whether the same Roger Browne appointed and delivered to the aforementioned Roger Luce the abovesaid butt of wine called a but of malmesey being the best and fullest of the abovesaid 4 butts according to the tenor of the abovesaid bill or not, the abovesaid jurors nevertheless rendered their abovesaid verdict that the same Roger Browne owed the aforementioned Roger Luce the sum of £6 13s4d, and thus that verdict (being matter not at all put in the abovesaid issue) is void, invalid, and of no strength in law, as above similarly it appears of record.
And finally in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred in this, scilt., that the abovesaid judgment was rendered that the abovesaid Roger Luce should recover against the same Roger Browne the abovesaid debt specified in the abovesaid record found by the abovesaid inquisition, whereas by the abovesaid record it does not appear that there was made any inquisition concerning that debt nor was any mention of any jury made in the inquisition, and thus that judgment is invalid and less sufficient in law, as above similarly it appears of record.
And the same Roger seeks the lady queen’s writ to warn the abovesaid Roger Luce to be before the lady queen to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., 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 Roger Luce that he be before the lady queen on the Octaves of St.Hilary wherever etc., to hear the abovesaid record and process etc., if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Roger Browne etc.
At which day before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid Roger Browne by his attorney abovesaid, and the sheriff returns that by virtue of the writ of the lady queen directed to him he made it to be known to the aforementioned Roger Luce to be before the lady queen as it was ordered to him to hear the abovesaid record and process etc., by Nicholas Hellyer and John Collyn prudent etc. Which certain Roger Luce, although thus warned and on the 4th day of the plea solemnly exacted, did not come. Thereon Robert Browne as before says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred by alleging the abovesaid errors by him alleged above in the abovesaid form, and he seeks that the abovesaid judgment on account of the errors abovesaid and others being in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing and that he be restored to everything that he lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment etc., and that the abovesaid Roger Luce be rejoined at the abovesaid errors, and that the court of the lady queen here proceed to the examination both of the abovesaid record and process and the abovesaid errors. And because the court of the lady queen here is not yet advised to render judgment of and on the premisses, day thereof is given to the aforementioned Roger Browne in the state at which it is now before the lady queen until 15 days after Easter wherever etc., to hear his judgment of and on the premisses etc., because the court of the lady queen here there not yet etc. [There is an omission of the appearance of the Browne at this next day.] And because the court of the lady queen here is not yet advised to render to render judgment of and on the premisses, day is given thereof to the aforementioned Roger Browne in the state at which it now is before the lady queen until the morrow of Holy Trinity wherever etc., to hear his judgment of and on the premisses etc., because the court of the lady queen here is not yet etc. Whereon, both the record and process abovesaid and the abovesaid errors assigned having been seen and inspected by the court of the lady queen and fully understood, it is considered that the abovesaid judgment on account of those errors and others being in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing, and that the abovesaid Robert Browne be restored to everything that by occasion of the abovesaid judgment he lost etc.
Let him be restored.
