1373.069 |
1373 |
Common Pleas |
Trespass for taking good and chattels and money |
Trespas
Briefe
Barre
Colour |
Tauke, William Sjt Tank (for D)
Hanmer, David Sjt Ham (for P)
Fyncheden, William de CJCP Finch
Hanmer, David Sjt Ham |
St. Cuthbert (Cutbert) of Hertford |
Prior of |
|
|
|
Nicholas, plaintiff prior's predecessor
Wy, John, defendant's testator
Thomas, Nicholas's successor, plaintiff prior's predecesssor |
Cument' |
|
Fitzherbert Briefe 623
Fitzherbert Barre 220
Fitzherbert Trespas 205 (not pl. 54)
Brooke Colour 80
Brooke Trespas 64
Statham Trans 15 |
related case 1373.071 = Mich. 47 Edw. 3, p. 57, fols. 23b-24a (same parties, relating to administration of goods of John Wy) |
|
Le Priour de Saint Cutbert de Hertford' port un briefe de Trespas devers Richard de Kinton Vicar', &c. quare |
16 |
The Prior of St. Cuthbert of Hertford brought a writ of Trespass against Richard of Kinton, vicar, etc., (Latin begins) why with force and arms he took and carried off the goods and chattels of the house of the said church of St. Cuthbert etc. from Nicholas, predecessor of the present prior, in the time of the aforesaid Nicholas, and also 20 marks in ready money (denariis numeratis) of the said house and church at Cument' (Latin ends). And judgment of the writ was demanded, inasmuch as the carrying off of the same money (deniers) was not supposed (Latin begins) in the time of the said Nicholas, and this was not allowed (Latin ends), because the first words served for all. The defendant said how there was one John Wy, who was seised of the same chattels of which the plaintiff complained, and died seised, and made this same Richard his executor, who seized the chattels and administered the cloth and money (deniers), to the value of 10 marks, and one Thomas, successor of this same Nicholas, prior of the same place and predecessor of this prior, claimed this John to be his villein, and seized the same chattels, that is, the rest etc., without this that he had carried off any goods in the time of Nicholas; ready etc. The plaintiff said that the defendant had not shown any possession of goods in the possession of his predecessor Nicholas, so his plea amounted only to not guilty, so that the plaintiff wanted to aver his writ. Fyncheden CJCP put the case that, if the defendant had pleaded as he had done here, and had shown that Nicholas was seised by the possession in himself, it would be a good plea, but now he showed possession in Thomas, his successor, so the possession to the house, so that he traced (conveia) the seisin, so that it seemed effectual enough. The plaintiff tendered to aver his writ. (Latin begins) And the other side said the contrary, as above (Latin ends). |
|