Winchester Documents

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: Dartmouth Docs 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.


1225:

1250:

1275:

H1295: dower custom in Winchester: [1]

1300:

T1311 A: Trespass taking of gold, silver, and precious stones. Nicholas justified that he had been elected to supervise the goldworkers of Winchester to ensure that they worked only pure gold and silver, as provided in the royal charter; impure metal was forfeit to the king. He seized gold of the weight of 2d as forfeit to the king. William Bonaventure v. Nicholas le Orfeure of Winchester, William de Shorham, John Moraund de Aulton of Winchester. [2]

E1312 A: Attachment by bailiff for hue and cry raised on theft. Ralph de Lavynton v. John le Deveneys of Winchester & Thomas Holeput. [3]

H1313 A: John Walrane, Henry Karrekeu, Henry de Welton, Henry Kare, Walter Mais, & John le Chaundeler merchants of John duke of Brabant v. Clement de Melton late bailiff of John de Warenne earl of Surrey of the fair of Stamford (Melton denies he was bailiff). Allegation that Melton disregarded royal protections and distrained plaintiffs for debts for which they were neither. Melton justified that he was not the bailiff of the Stamford fair, but of the Boston fair. In 2 Edward II Melton had sold Henry Kare 10 sacks of wool worth for 65 p.s. to be paid to him at the next Winchester fair. Because the debt was not then paid, Melton attached Kare at the Stamford fair to prosecute him before the bailiffs of the Stamford fiar for the debt according to the law merchant; Kare was convicted of a debt of 19 p.s. 9 s. with 20 marks damages. Certain cloths belonging to Kare were appreciated at that value and delivered to Melton. No verdict. [4]

M1313 A: Limitation on royal orders to release prisoners. William Fromond of Winchester v. John le Frenshe, Robert Calnesknave (bailiffs of Winchester), William de Haywod, Robert de Freyle, & Peter le Mercer. [5]

1325:

T1347 A: Hampshire. John de Micheldevere (qui tam) v. Robert de Cherteseye late bailiff of Adam late bishop of Winchester for the soke of Winchester. The king had ordered (by writs delivered at the priory of St Swithin, Winchester: one in 1343 and another in 1344) him to execute a judgment in a case in his court by return of writ for a debt of 10 p.s. against John Essex; the bailiff still had not executed the judgment. [6], [7], [8] [9] rcp

M1347 B: Hampshire. John, prior of the Dominicans of London and Brother Arnold de Lym confrere of the prior v. Walter, abbot of Hyde Abbey by Winchester, Brother John Blaunkchival, Brother Robert Middelton, Brother John Draycote, Brother Roger Tybaud, Brother Dominic de Basingstoke, Brother Nicholas Ditton, and Brother Peter de Bekford. Trespass: assault and false imprisonment. Defendants said that Arnold was a professed monk of Hyde Abbey, but escaped and fled, but first "in ignem and flammam posuit ad comburendum": put the abbey to fire and flame to burn it down. The abbot ordered the other defendants to capture Arnold, and they located him in Westminster. They sought the king's help; the king ordered Ralph, baron of Stafford, the steward of the king's household, to arrest Arnold and deliver him to the monks. The baron did so. The monks then took Arnold back to the abbey, and that was the imprisonment complained of. The prior and Arnold claimed that Arnold at that time was a member of the Dominican priory. The bishop of Winchester certified that Arnold was professed in Hyde Abbey, so the defendants went without day. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Then: [15]

M1348 A: Hampshire. Rex and John Marreys v. Nicholas le Frenshe of Winchester dyer. The king appointed Marreys ulnager, and Marreys appointed William de Holewell to act in his place in Winchester. Nicholas together with Lawrence de Boseham impeded him on the Wednesday before Pentecost 22 Edward III so he could not do his job. [16] rcp


1350:

1375:

1400:

1425:

1450

1475:

1500:

1525:

1550:

1575:

1600:

1625:

1650:

1675:

Personal tools