| 1346.232rs |
1346 |
Common Pleas |
Contempt |
Contempte |
| Mich. |
20 |
Edw. 3 |
39 |
RS 323-335 |
Moubray, John de Sjt (for D)
Greene, Henry Sjt Grene (for P)
Skipwyth, William de Sjt (for D)
Thorp, Robert de Sjt Thorpe (for P)
the Court
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
Moubray, John de Sjt
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
the Court
Moubray, John de Sjt
Stonore, John de CJCP
Willoughby, Richard JCP Wilby
|
Freiselle (Frisel) |
Richard |
|
|
| Rex |
Bury St. Edmund's, Abbot of
Pope, the (Appostoille)
Canterbury, Archbishop of
Durham, Bishop of
York, Archbishop of
Dublin, Archbishop of
Kersey, Prior of, commissary of Bishop of Norwich, defendant in cross-referenced case |
Court of Arches |
|
| |
same or related case 1346.068rs = Pasch. 20 Edw. 3, pl. 27, RS 215-233 (contempt by Richard Freiselle against two commissaries of Bishop of Norwich)
related case 1347.207 = Mich. (2nd) 21 Edw. 3, pl. 7, fols. 60a-60b (contempt by king against Bishop of Norwich for disregarding exemptions of Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's)
cross-referenced in 1347.007 = Hil. 21 Edw. 3, pl. 7, fol. 3a |
|
| Richard Frisel suist, pur nostre seignur le Roi et pur luy, un brief de Contempte vers Levesqe de Norwiz |
104 |
|
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. Richard of Bury was Bishop of Durham from 14 Oct. 1333 to 14 Apr. 1345. Thomas Hatfield was Bishop of Durham from 8 May 1345 to 8 May 1381. William Zouche was Archbishop of York from 2 May 1340 to Jul. 1352. Alexander de Bicknor was Archbishop of Dublin from 20 Aug. 1317 to 14 Jul. 1349. Augustinian priory of St. Mary Virgin and St. Anthony at Kersey, Suffolk. |
| Summary: Richard Freiselle sued, for the king and for himself, a writ of Contempt against the Bishop of Norwich on the ground that the bishop had made various citations and summonses to the Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's, who was exempt from every jurisdiction of the ordinary by virtue of the charters of the king's progenitors, and of the deeds of the Pope, and who was before the king to show his charters and muniments by virtue of which he claimed to be exempt. Thereupon the king sent, by Richard Freiselle, his Prohibition to the bishop forbidding him to attempt anything further against the abbot's right in the matter above mentioned. Richard delivered that Prohibition to him on a certain day, in a certain year, and at a certain place, by reason of which delivery the bishop made process against Richard until he had excommunicated him tortiously, and in despite of the king's commands, and in contempt of the king, and to the damage of Richard to the amount of one thousand pounds. The defendant said that Richard was excommunicated, and showed the letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury that testified the fact; judgment whether etc. And the letter stated that the archbishop had found in the Acts of the Court of Arches that Richard was excommunicated for various causes, and as such the archbishop held him. The plaintiff said that the Court saw plainly how this suit was taken by reason of an excommunication pronounced upon Richard by the bishop, and the archbishop's letter did not testify that the excommunication that he found in the Acts in the Court of Arches was for any other reason than that of which the plaintiff's action was taken, and therefore it could not be understood to be anything but the same excommunication of which the action was taken. Moreover, he said that this suit was taken for the king and for Richard, and therefore in this case a letter of excommunication pronounced on Richard would not bar the suit that the king had taken. The defendant said it was not so, because if Richard would be nonsuited, the defendant would depart quit of the king with regard to this suit, until the king had been apprised by indictment, and consequently an excommunication pronounced on Richard tolled suit for the king as much as for himself. And, as to the plaintiff's statement that he would be understood to be excommunicated for the same case as that for which his action was taken because no other cause was shown, the defendant said that it seemed that it could not be so understood, because the letter stated that it was found in the Court of Arches that it was for various causes that he was excommunicated, and therefore it could not be understood that it was for the cause mentioned in his action; and whether it was for the same cause or not, the Court could not adjudge it to be so, since it was not mentioned in the letter. The plaintiff said that the defendant said that which he would like to be the fact (vous dites talent), since the plaintiff's action was taken on an excommunication, and the defendant put forward a letter of the archbishop that testified an excommunication pronounced upon the plaintiff, as to which excommunication it was proved by the archbishop's letter that he did not undertake to state it as of his own knowledge, but as he had found it among the Acts of the Court of Arches, and from those words it was to be supposed that it was pronounced by another person. In that case, since the defendant did not show that the excommunication was for any other cause than that in respect of which the plaintiff's action was taken, the plaintiff said that it could only be understood to be for the same cause. In the end the Court said that they never understood the cause of excommunication to be other than that on which the action was taken, unless the contrary were shown. Willoughby JCP asked the defendant whether he wished to say anything else. The defendant said that, if the Court adjudged that Richard ought to be answered, notwithstanding this letter, he was ready to answer. Willoughby JCP said that indeed the defendant would have only one judgment from the Court, if he abided judgment there; because this action was taken by reason of an excommunication, and, in that case, when a letter of excommunication had been alleged, and disallowed because the Court understood that the excommunication was for the cause in respect of which the action was taken, the party must of necessity on judgment thereon be convicted (though it would be otherwise in other writs relating to other kinds of actions); and therefore, if the defendant abided judgment on that point, it would be a peremptory demurrer. But nevertheless the Court said that, notwithstanding the letter, Richard should be answered, and therefore the defendant was commanded to answer. The defendant then said that the Court saw plainly how this action was taken by reason of an excommunication pronounced upon Richard for the delivery of a Prohibition, whereas a case of excommunication was of so spiritual a nature that this Court could not try the cause of it, because no one could by law divine for what cause he was excommunicated except the ordinary himself who excommunicated him; and therefore the defendant did not understand that they would take cognisance of such a matter in this Court. Stonore CJCP said that this was the king's suit as well as Richard's suit, and the king would never be put to sue in any other court than his own; therefore he asked the defendant if he would say anything else. And the defendant said that he would not. Therefore Willoughby JCP rehearsed the whole plea, and said that the same case arose between the king and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of Durham, and the Archbishop of York, and the Archbishop of Dublin, and in those cases, by reason of the contempt, the temporalities were seized, and judgment was given that their persons should be taken. And Willoughby JCP said that, because the defendant had sworn to the king to maintain his laws and his crown, and inasmuch as he had not been willing to answer to the king in this Court in respect of an excommunication pronounced upon his messenger, but wished to put him to sue in the defendant's court, whereas the king would never be put to sue ecxept in his own Court, and inasmuch as the defendant had not been willing to answer to the king's action, this Court gave judgment that the defendant's temporalities be seized into the king's hand, there to remain until Richard was absolved, and further at the king's pleasure, and that Richard recover his damages; but because the Court were not advised whether he should recover his damages in accordance with his count or by assessment, and also whether the defendant should be taken or not, the Court would put those matters in respite until they had further considered. And a plea similar to this was pleaded for the Prior of Kersey, who was the bishop's commissary, against the king and this same Richard; and, because the defendant would not say anything else, judgment was given that he should be taken, and that Richard should recover damages against him to the amount of a thousand marks in accordance with the count, because the Court held him to be undefended, inasmuch as he pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court said to his counsel that it would take cognisance, and that they must answer over, and they would not say anything further. |
BL MS Harleian 741
Isham MS |
|
|
|
| Luke Owen Pike, Year Books of the Reign of King Edward the Third: Year XX (Second Part), Rolls Series no. 31, part B, vol. 15 (London 1911), pp. 322-335 |
| Placita de Banco, Mich. 20 Edw. 3, Ro. 472 |
0 |
Freiselle, Richard |
John, Prior of Kersey, Commissary of the Bishop of Norwich |
2005-12-31 |
|
