| 1346.068rs |
1346 |
Common Pleas |
Contempt |
Trespas:
Contempt
|
| Pasch. |
20 |
Edw. 3 |
27 |
RS 215-233 |
Moubray, John de Sjt (for D)
Greene, Henry Sjt Grene (for P)
Skipwyth, William de Sjt (for D)
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Skipwyth, William de Sjt (unattributed)
Greene, Henry Sjt Grene
Skipwyth, William de Sjt Skyp (variant in version 2)
Stouford, John de JCP
Skipwyth, William de Sjt (addressed, unattributed)
Moubray, John de Sjt
Seton, Thomas de Sjt Setone (for P)
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Moubray, John de Sjt
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Thorp, Robert de Sjt Thorpe (for P) (version 2)
the Court (version 2) |
J. (Freiselle (Friselle)) |
(Richard) |
|
|
| Rex |
Norwich, Bishop of
Bury St. Edmund's, Abbot of
Canterbury, Archbishop of
(Heselbeche, Thomas of, litigant in cross-referenced case)
(Bath, Commissaries of Bishop of, litigants in cross-referenced case) |
Court of Arches of London |
|
| Fitzherbert Excommengement 9 |
same or related case 1346.232rs = Mich. 20 Edw. 3, pl. 39, RS 323-335 (contempt by RIchard Freiselle against Bishop of Norwich)
case of Thomas of Heselbeche against the Commissaries of the Bishop of Bath (perhaps 1344.250rs = Mich. 18 Edw. 3, pl. 88, RS 355-357 (suit of Thomas of Haselhawe against commissary of the Bishop of Bath)) |
|
| Un J. suyst un brief pur luy et pur le Roy vers W. de R., Commissare Levesqe de Norwiz, de ceo qe |
87 |
| Thorp Sjt (for P king): Nous entendoms qe chesqun homme, Evesqe ou autre, qest lege homme le Roi, deit estre obeisaunt al comandement le Roi. (We understand that everyone, be he bishop or anyone else, who is the king's liege, ought to be obedient to the king's command.) |
|
William Bateman was Bishop of Norwich from Jan. 1344 to 6 Jan. 1355. Benedictine Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. John Stratford was Archbishop of Canterbury from 3 Nov. 333 to 23 Aug. 1348. |
Noted at RS xxvi-xxix.
Summary: J. sued a writ for himself and for the king against W. of R., Commissary of the Bishop of Norwich, on the ground that the bishop made various summonses to the Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's, who was exempt from all jurisdiction of the ordinary in virtue of the charters of the king's progenitors, to appear before him, and thereupon the king sent his prohibition by J., the plaintiff, to the bishop and to W., his commissary, directing them not to intermeddle etc., and the bishop did nothing in obedience to that writ, and afterwards they denounced J. as being excommunicated, whereas he was the king's messenger, and this tortiously and in contempt of the king and of his commands, and to the damage of J. The defendant said that J. should not be answered because he was excommunicated, and he put forward the same bishop's letter of excommunication. The plaintiff said that, since his action was taken on the ground of the excommunication pronounced against him, which the defendant had confessed, and he said nothing else, the plaintiff prayed that the defendant be convicted of contempt, and he prayed his damages. The defendant said that it was possible that this excommunication might be for some fact other than that in respect of which the plaintiff's action was taken, and that for that reason the plaintiff was not in a condition to be answered; and also the plaintiff had supposed that the defendant denounced him as being excommunicated, and the defendant put forward the bishop's letter which proved that he had excommunicated the plaintiff, and so it was a different excommunication from that in respect of which the plaintiff's action was taken, and therefore the plaintiff was not in a condition to be answered; juidgment. Willoughby JCP said, that which the bishop certified by his letter was to be understood to refer to the same excommunication as that denounced by his subordinates, unless the reverse were pleaded; therefore he told the defendant to answer over. Therefore the defendant put forward a letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which stated that he had found in the Court of Arches that the plaintiff had been excommunicated for various matters, and therefore the archbishop denounced him as being excommunicated. The plaintiff said that the Court saw plainly that the defendant previously alleged the letter of the Bishop of Norwich, whose commissaries the defendants were supposed to be, and it was supposed by the plaintiff's suit that the bishop had excommunicated him for having delivered the prohibition, which excommunication could only be understood to be that same excommunication in respect of which his action was taken, and therefore his action was then confessed; therefore the defendants should not be received to say that which they alleged. And moreover, the archbishop took that which he testified from a record of the Court of Arches, and it could only be understood as being for the same cause as that in respect of which the plaintiff's action was taken, unless any other cause were testified in the letter; therefore etc. The defendant said, since he had produced the archbishop's letter that proved the plaintiff to be excommunicated, and the archbishop was not supposed by the plaintiff's suit to be a party to the excommunication, judgment. Stouford JCP said that the plaintiff had specially supposed by his suit that he was excommunicated and for a particular cause, and the letter that the defendants put forward proved a general excommunication in his person, which general excommunication might include in his person that particular excommunication in respect of which the action was taken, and therefore, since the letter did not assign any other cause of excommunication, it must be understood to be for the same cause for which the action was taken. Therefore the defendants were put to answer over. The defendants said that the Court saw plainly how the plaintiff took his action on the ground that the defendants were supposed to have excommunicated him by reason of the delivery of a prohibition, which matter did not fall under the cognisance of this Court, that is to say, whether he was excommunicated for that cause or for another; and the defendants demanded judgment whether the Court would put them to answer in this case. And the plaintiff demanded judgment, since the defendants had not denied that they excommunicated him by reason of the delivery of the prohibition, which excommunication could not be punished by any other suit than one of this nature; therefore the plaintiff demanded judgment and prayed that the defendants be convicted of contempt, and he prayed his damages. Willoughby JCP asked the defendants if they would say anything else. The defendants said that it seemed to them that the cause of excommunication could not be known to anyone but to the person who pronounced it, and that consequently it was not triable in this Court; therefore etc. Willoughby JCP gave judgment that the plaintiff should recover his damages, without determining whether in accordance with his declaration, or by assessment of the Court, and that the defendants should be taken. And the defendants prayed that the damages might be assessed. Willoughby JCP said that, inasmuch as the defendants were undefended, the plaintiff would recover damages in accordance with his declaration, but that he desired to consider the point. But, because the plaintiff did not wish to sue against the others, the damages were not assessed, but otherwise they would have been assessed, and the damages would not have been in accordance with his declaration. The plaintiff prayed the capias. And because the king sent his letter to the Justices to stay the taking of the bodies of the defendants, the plaintiff could not have the capias, notwithstanding the fact that the defendants would have remained in prison, until they had made satisfaction as to the damages, if the damages had been assessed.
Summary of second version: A writ of contempt was sued against two commissaries of the Bishop of Norwich by Richard Freiselle on the ground that they had denounced the plaintiff as being excommunicated because he delivered the king's prohibition to the bishop. The defendants denied tort and force, and put forward a letter of the same Bishop of Norwich testifying that the plaintiff was excommunicated, and demanded judgment whether he ought to be answered. The plaintiff said that this letter proved his action, because it did not prove excommunication for any other cause than he had supposed, because this letter was in general terms, and the defendants had not denied that they were commissaries of the same bishop, or that they pronounced the same sentence as the plaintiff had surmised against them, and therefore the plaintiff prayed judgment against them as being undefended. The defendant said that the bishop was not a party to that which the plaintiff had surmised, and he said that until the plaintiff was in a condition to be answered, he had no need to answer, and he demanded judgment whether the plaintiff ought to be answered. he said that it was not right that by feigning the name of a commissary the plaintiff should deprive him of the advantage that the law gave him. And the defendant said that he had seen that Thomas of Heselbeche, in a similar case, was not answered with respect to the Commissaries of the Bishop of Bath. Willoughby JCP said that judgment was not given in that case. Afterwards by judgment the defendant was told that he must answer. Therefore on the next day he put forward a letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury testifying that the plaintiff was excommunicated for various contumacies, as he found in the acts of the Court of Arches of London. The plaintiff said that this letter, like that above, did not prove that the plaintiff was excommunicated for any particular cause other than for that same cause in respect of which the action was taken, and therefore this letter was no more to the purpose in order to make the plaintiff not in a condition to be answered than the first; and the archbishop's letter did not state that he was supposed to have pronounced any sentence himself, but testified that he had found this matter. Willoughby JCP said that, since this letter was in general terms, and did not prove the plaintiff to have been excommunicated for any other cause than was supposed by his suit, the Court understood this excommunication to be no other than that which the first letter stated; therefore he told the defendants to answer. The defendants said that the Court saw plainly how the plaintiff supposed by his suit that he was excommunicated for the production of the prohibition, whereas this Court could not take cognisance of or try the cause of excommunication, and they did not understand that the Court would take cognisance. The plaintiff said that, inasmuch as the defendants had not denied that they excommunicated him by reason of the delivery of the prohibition, he demanded judgment, and he prayed his damages, and that the defendants be convicted of the contempt. The defendants said that the cause of excommunication could not be known, nor consequently could it be tried by averment, and therefore to traverse the cause would not make an issue, nor consequently could the Court take cognisance. The plaintiff said that he understood that everyone, be he bishop or anyone else, who was the king's liege, ought to be obedient to the king's command, so that if the prohibition, even if it did not lie, was delivered to him, he should by reason thereof stay proceedings until a writ of consultation (procedure for revoking a prohibition to an ecclesiastical court) came to him; and inasmuch as the defendants did not deny that which the plaintiff had surmised, he demanded judgment. Willoughby JCP said that the Court gave judgment that the plaintiff recover his damages, and that the others be taken for the contempt. And it was said that the damages would not be assessed because the defendants were undefended. Willoughby JCP said that there were others named in the writ, and he asked the plaintiff if he would sue against them. The plaintiff said yes, and he prayed that the damages for which the Court had given judgment be assessed by them in accordance with the plaintiff's declaration. Willoughby JCP said that, if the Court assessed the damages now, when afterwards the jury came on an issue joined by the others, it would assess other damages, of which damages the plaintiff would then have execution, as meaning to say that there would be error. Therefore Willoughby JCP postponed the matter for further consideration, and they were adjourned. |
BL MS Harleian 741
Isham MS
LI MS 40 (186) (version 2)
CUL MS Hh. 2. 3 (version 2) |
|
Second version had 71 lines. |
|
| Luke Owen Pike, Year Books of the Reign of King Edward the Third: Year XX (First Part), Rolls Series no. 31, part B, vol. 14 (London 1908), pp. 214-233 |
|
0 |
Rex
Freiselle, Richard |
Theobaud, Simon, son of Nigel, of Sudbury, and James, parson of the church of Wrabbenase, commissaries of the Bishop of Norwich |
2005-09-08 |
|
