| 1372.115ass |
1372 |
Assize |
Common of pasture, assize of |
Assise |
|
46 |
Edw. 3 |
Lib. Ass. 1 |
303a-303b |
Clopton, Walter de (for D)
Percy, Henry Sjt Pers (for P)
Percy, Henry Sjt Pers (for D) (perhaps misattributed)
Tauke, William Sjt Tank (for P) |
Cerne |
Abbot of |
|
|
|
Cerne, Abbot and Covent of |
A., manor of
Meltomb, town of
Westminster |
|
| |
13 Hen. 4, fol. 85
2 Hen. 7, fol. 12 |
|
| L'Abbe de Cerne port' un Assise de common de Pasture vers les Bail' & le Cominaltie de Meltomb. Et fist |
22 |
|
Benedictine abbey of St. Mary Virgin and St. Peter (and St. Edwold) at Cerne, Dorsetshire. Walter de Clopton was created serjeant in Hil. 1376. |
| The Abbot of Cerne brought an Assize of Common of pasture against the bailiffs and the commonalty of Meltomb, and he made his plaint to common in 20 acres of pasture with all his animals of his manor of A., that is, oxen, cows, horses, sheep, and pigs, through all the seasons of the year. The defendants said that Edward II, father of the present king, by his charter (which was here) granted the vill of Meltomb to the bailiffs and commonalty of Meltomb, their heirs and successors forever at fee farm, rendering to the king and his heirs eight marks per year at the terms etc., of which farm the king was seised. And they put forward the charter dated in the eighth year of the same king, and they said that the tenements put in view were part of the same town. They did not understand that, with the king not knowing, the Court would take this assize. To this the plaintiff said that the same King Edward, by his charter (which was here), before the (collection) of the defendants' charter, that is, the sixth year of his reign, was seised of the same vill, and granted common of pasture to the Abbot and Covent of Cerne and to their successors forever in the same soil, with all the animals of their manor of A., until the same soil was built and inhabited with men of the people (gens popla'ri), and he said that the same soil was still an uninhabited vill; by force of which grant he was seised of the same common until disseised by the defendants. The plaintiff did not understand, since his grant of the common was older than the defendants', from the same king by whom they claimed, that the king in this case should be consulted, in delaying his suit. The defendants said that it was possible that between the grant made to the plaintiff and the grant made to them, some matter had happened between the king and the plaintiff's predecessor, by which the soil was discharged of the common, which matter could be shown by the King's Counsel in disinheritance of him (nous). The plaintiff said that this was not understandable by common intent, and if there were such matter, the defendants could plead it, and even if he were to recover the common, nevertheless nothing would be lost (dep't) to the king, because the defendants would remain charged with the entire farm as before, and it seemed that it was different in this case than if a part of the soil were in demand, because there it was necessary that the aid be granted of the king, because otherwise by such a recovery one would become tenant of the king without the king's knowledge (sceu). (Latin begins) And upon this a day was given in their court at Westminster (Latin ends). |
|
