| 1442.065 |
1442 |
Common Pleas |
(Writ of Right) |
Quale jus
Judicium |
| Trin. (or Mich.) |
20 |
Hen. 6 |
addit. 5 |
38b |
Brown, Thomas, Clerk of CP
the inquest |
(Newel) |
(Prior of) |
|
|
Fitzherbert Collusion 24 (not Mich.), Office del court 4 (not in margin, not Mich.)
Brooke Office del court 28 |
Prior proceeding 1442.064 = Trin. 20 Hen. 6, addit. pl. 4, fol. 38b
10 Hen. 7, fol. 3
19 Hen. 6, fol. 9
44 Edw. 3, fol. 41
[8] Edw. 3, fol. 386
Staunford, Praerogativa Regis 85 |
Westminster 2nd (1285), ch. 32 |
| Et Nota, que proclamacion fuit fait. Si ascun voulet informe les Justices ou les Serjants du Roy |
17 |
(inquiry as to collusion by demandant prior with tenant or vouchee to evade the Statute of Mortmain.)
A proclamation was made that if anyone wanted to inform the Justices or the King's Serjeants for the king, he would be heard.
No one came.
The Justices demanded two of those who were returned to try the parols (prospective jurors).
The Justices examined the two triors as to this, and the two triors were sworn.
A (prospective) juror was demanded, and came to the bar.
The Justices said to the two triors that they should inquire on the oath that they had made, whether this (prospective) juror had anything within the hundred to the value of 40 shillings, or whether he was within the distraint of demandant (plaintiff) prior, or whether he were favourable (to either party).
The triors said that (the challenged juror) had sufficient value within the hundred, was not in (demandant prior's) distraint, and was not favourable (partial).
The juror was sworn.
This was done for another (prospective juror) in such manner, and he was found as the first juror was.
The two triors chosen by the Court were discharged, and the other two jurors (tried by the triors) tried the others in the panel.
When four jurors were sworn, the Court said to the jurors, that if they had sufficient freehold within the Couty to the value of 40 shillings, and nothing with the distraint of demandant prior, and not favourable.
Thus was trial made of all until the Court had a full inquest (jury).
When they had a full (complete) inquest, the record was read to them, that they would inquire of collusion (of demandant prior) with the party tenant in demesne, as well as (collusion of demandant prior) with the party (vouchee) tenant by his warranty.
The inquest came and said that demandant prior had right in the manor as he had counted, and that there was no collusion.
A clerk of CP asked the inquest what was the value of the land per year.
The inquest said it was 40 shillings.
The inquest was discharged |
process for determining, under Westminster 2nd (1285), ch. 32, whether demandant prior's recovery by default was designed by collusion to evade the statute prohibiting mortmain gifts
clerk questioned jury (enquest) and jury replied |
|
|
demaine should be demesne |
|
Note
Proclamation
Information
King's Serjeant
King
Hearing
Appearance
Demand
Return
Trial
Prospective Juror (parol)
Examination
Swearing
Juror
Inquiry
Oath
Making Oath
Hundred
Value
Distraint
Prior
Favour
Manner
Finding
Choice
Discharge
Panel
Sufficiency
Freehold
County
Inquest
Full Inquest
Record
Reading
Collusion
Party
Demesne
Tenant in Demesne
Tenanty by the Warranty
Warranty
(Verdict)
Right
Count
Intent
Issues
Mesne Issues
Meantime
Time
Statute |
|
