| 1372.073 |
1372 |
|
Attaint (Quare impedit) |
Attaint
Damages
Executors |
| Mich. |
46 |
Edw. 3 |
5 |
23a-23b |
Fyncheden, William de CJCP Finchd
Percy, Henry Sjt Persay (for D)
Fyncheden, William de CJCP FInche
Fyncheden, William de CJCP Finchden
Fencotes, John de Sjt (for P) |
Tirel (Tiril) |
Hugh |
|
|
| Tirel, Katherine, Hugh's wife |
Bryningham, W., late husband of plaintiff Katherine
Cornwall, Edmund, earl of |
Berford Martin, church of |
|
Fitzherbert Damage (not Dammages) 78
Brooke Dammages (not Damages) 174
Brooke Executor (not Executors) 35
Statham Damages 8 |
same case variant report 1372.122ass = 46 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. 8, fols. 306a-306b |
the statute = Gloucester (1278), 6 Edw. 1, ch. 1 (damages to be apportioned in assize of novel disseisin in case the disseisor was insufficient) |
| Attaint fuit port vers Emine Chisilden & William Chisilden per un Hugh' Tirel, & Katherine sa feme d'aver |
32 |
|
Edmund 'of Almaine" was Earl of Cornwall from 2 Apr. 1272 (invested 13 Oct. 1272) to 24-25 Sep. 1300. s.v. Edmund of Almain, second earl of Cornwall, 1349-1300, in Oxford DNB. |
| Attaint was brought against Emine Chisilden and William Chisilden by one Hugh Tirel and his wife Katherine for having a false verdict, which had previously passed in a Quare impedit brought by one W. Bryningham and the said K., then his wife, of the advowson of the church of Berford Martin, as of the right of Katherine, against the said Emine, and they assigned for a false oath, for this that the petty 12 had said that Edmund, earl of Cornwall, had presented a certain man, as appeared by the record, to the said church as appendant to the manor there, and he at his presentment was inducted and instituted, by reason of which the said Emine recovered the advowson. And because the time had passed etc., she recovered the value of the said church for two years, which was assessed (taxe) at 24 marks, whereas the said Edmund had never presented such a person, and no such person was instituted and inducted at his presentment, so they had made a false oath. Then the 24 jurors said that they had made a false oath, as those who brought the Attaint had assigned, and assessed (taxer') the damages at 26 marks besides the 24 marks that were recovered and paid in the first suit, but William Chesilden had alleged nontenure in the advowson, which matter was found against him also. Fyncheden CJCP said that the damages were not recovered here as in an Assize of Novel disseisin, where each one would answer for his time, by the force of the statute, because there the reason was that the tenant should be charged for the issues taken in the meantime, on condition that if there were various intervening (mesnes) estates, the Assize in the end would be brought against the disseisor and the tenant, and against all others who had intervening (mesne) estates, and each would answer for his time, but here there were no issues nor profits in the meantime, but each thought by the counterplea to recover damages against the two in common. The defendants said that the damages recovered in the Quare impedit were paid by the first husband of the wife, and levied of his goods, and the wife lost nothing, by reason of which the wife did not have cause to have them, but the husband's executors would have execution of this, so that judgment would not be given for them, as in the case that two were vouched, and one had nothing; he who lost would have the Attaint. Fyncheden CJCP said that in the case that damages were recovered against the one and the other, would both not have the Attaint? (Latin begins) As if to say, yes (Latin ends). Fyncheden CJCP said that in a writ of Trespass brought against a husband and his wife, for a trespass committed by the wife, after the death of her husband she would have the Attaint, and the damages paid. The plaintiffs said that the wife was a party to lose in law, as well in damages as in the principal, and in case they were not to be levied until after the husband's death, they would be levied of the wife's goods, so it was right (reason) that she be party to the recovery of this. Therefore it was awarded that the husband and wife would recover the advowson as in the right of the wife, and their damages, 24 marks recovered in the first writ against Emine alone, and the 26 marks against E. and W. Chesilden in common. And that those of the petty 12 lose their free law (imprisonment, forfeiture, banishment from the verge of the king's court, and exclusion from being a juryman or a witness), and that their lands and tenements be wasted and stripped (estripp'), and their wives and their children ousted, and their goods and chattels forfeited to the king, and that they be taken. |
|
