Boston University School of Law

Legal History: The Year Books

Record Detail

 
Previous Record Next Record
Image
For an image of this report text from the Vulgate Year Books Reprint, click here.
Seipp Number:
Year
Court
Writ
Marginal Heading
1476.015 1476 King's Bench Trespass for housebreaking Trespas
Term
Regnal Year
King: Plea Number Folio Number
Pasch. 16 Edw. 4 6 2a-2b
Serjeants/ Justices Plaintiff Surname Plaintiff First Name v. Defendent Surname Defendent First Name
Fairfax, Guy Sjt (for P)
Pygot, Richard Sjt Pigot (for D?)
Billyng, Thomas CJKB Bill.
Pygot, Richard Sjt Pig.
Ashton Sir J.
Other Plaintiffs Other Names Places Other Defendents
Wortley or Wortheley, T., another trespasser
Wortley, Nicholas, son of T.
Alice or C., daughter of plaintiff and wife of Nicholas Wortley
Dale, in York
York, County of
Parliament
Abridgements Cross-References Statutes
  21 Edw. 3, fol. 41
8 Edw. 4, fol. 8 (twice)
14 Edw. 4, fol. 6
17 Hen. 4, fol. 5 (?)
37 Hen. 6, fol. 29
12 Hen. 4, fol. 16
33 Hen. 6, fol. 55 
an Act of Parliament made against defendant and against one W. 
Incipit (First Line) Number of Lines
Trespas port per un J. Ashton Chivaler vers J. Marsel, & counta coment le dit defendant aver ove force & 35
Process and Pleading
Plaintiff knight counted that defendant had with force and arms broken into plaintiff's house and had ousted plaintiff's wife and servants.
Defendant pleaded that the trespass was committed by another and by defendant, and that since the supposed trespass, there was communication between plaintiff and the other trespasser in a county that the son of the other trespasser would marry the daughter of plaintiff knight, that for thee marriage plaintiff knight would give to the other trespasser 450 marks, and that then it was agreed the other trespasser would give his son in marriage to marry plaintiff, for which marriage the other trespasser had 350 marks from plaintiff knight, and that the 100 marks would be recouped and would reduce (abate) the 450 marks in full satisfaction of the trespass and all others, and defendant pleaded in fact that the other trespasser's son had married plaintiff knight's daughter.
Plaintiff knight replied that the communication in itself was not cause to bar plaintiff's action, that the recouping of 100 marks would not be understood as recompense or satisfaction to plaintiff, that the other trespasser had quid pro quo from plaintiff, and that plaintiff knight had no advantage by marriage of the other trespasser's son to plaintiff's daughter.
Defendant rejoined that defendant's plea proved that the marriage of the other trespasser's son was worth 450 marks, and that plaintiff paid only 350 marks, so plaintiff was satisfied of the 100 marks.
Billyng CJKB agreed that the father had his son's marriage to give (or sell).
Defendant said more for his plea, that an agreement (accord) was made before the marriage, that it was agreed that the other trespasser should make a deed and deliver it to plaintiff knight, by which a certain jointure ought to be made to the groom and bride, and also that the other trespasser ought to give to plaintiff knight at the time of the marriage a ton of red wine, and that in fact the other trespasser (or defendant) had delivered the deed and the wine according to the condition and judgment.
On this the parties demurred in judgment for two causes, one whether this matter proved a satisfaction or not, and another cause because plaintiff's action was founded by reason (cause) of an act of Parliament made against defendant and another, so that the other trespasser was a stranger to this act, whether or not defendant ought to plead satisfaction had by plaintiff, against whom no action was given by reason of this statute.
Language Notes (Law French)
(for D:) & que le dit C. marks serra recoupe & abate de les CCCC. l. marcs en lein satisfaction del dit transgressioun & touts auters
Sjt Fairfax (for P): issint quant le defendant remitte C. marks per le mariage, ne serra auter enter entendue mes que le finale conclusion fuit que Sir J. Ashton donna solement CCC. l. marks pur mariage, issint que le comunicacion ove le recouping e les C. marks ne poet estre dit ascun recompensacion en barre d' accion; ne serra dit ascun satisfaccion; serra entende quant Sir J. dona CCC. l. marks que cest fuit pur le mariage, issint avoiet T. Worthely Quid pro quo, & dato que T. ust done le mariage a Sir J.A. quitement sans rien prendre, uncore ceo n' est que satisfaccion, car le plaintiff n' ad asun benefit de cest, mes l' avantage quel A. le file J. A. & a barre le plaintiff per un satisfaccion fait a un estranger, serra enconter reaon
Sjt Pygot (for D): quant a cest que le communication (co-iat-) n' est pas a purpose, ceo n' est pas issint, car le comunication (co-ication) est allege a prover que le mariage le dit N. vaudra CCCC. l. marces, & donnques quant le somme est mittigat a CCC. l. marks, & auxy le mariage le dit N. dona al plaintiff a cest rpove que le plaintiff ad un profit per ceo; & auxi quant il fuit agree que il duist aver N. son fits en mariage, & il ad perimplie cest agreement, ceo est un satisfaccion en luy mesme, car le mariage de mon fits & heir appartient a moy, car j' avera un brief de Transgressioun 'quare vi & armis filium & haeredum cepit', & recover damages maintenant regardant al mariage
& sur cest les parties sont demurres en jugement pur 2. causes un le quel cest matter prove un satisfaccion ou nemy, un auter pur ceo que cest accion est foundu pur cause d' un act de parliament fait vers le defendant & un W. issint que T. Wortl' est estranger a cest act, le quel il duist pleder son satisfaccion ew pur luy, vers que nul action est done per reason de cest estatute ou nemy, &c.
Abstract Context
perhaps s.v. Ashton, Sir Ralph, c. 1425 - 1487 x 1490, in Oxford DNB.
Commentary & Paraphrase
marriage settlement as release of a joint tortfeasor's trespass
son and heir's marriage belongs to father, father has Trespass vi et armis for taking his son and heir, or Trespass on the Case
450 (CCCC. l.) marks (= 300 pounds); 350 marks (= 233 pounds 6 shillings 8 pence); 100 marks (= 66 pounds 13 shillings 4 pence)
Sjt Fairfax (for P): notwithstanding that such a communication was made that one (plaintiff knight) would pay 450 (CCCC. l.) marks yet it could be that they were agreed for a marriage for 350 marks, so when the defendant remitted 100 marks for the marriage, it will not be understood to have been for anything else, but the final conclusion (of the plea) was that Sir J.Ashton gave solely 350 marks for marriage, so that the communication with the recouping of the 100 marks cannot be called any recompence (recompensation) in bar of the action, and Sir, as to (what is said), that T. (Wortheley, the other trespasser) would give his son to Sir J. Ashton (his daughter) for the marriage, so T. Worthely (the other trespasser) had 'Quid pro quo', and I put (dato) that T. (Wortheley, the other trespasser) had given the marriage to Sir J. Ashton (his daughter) 'quitement' without taking anything, yet this is no satisfaction, because the plaintiff does not have any benefit from this, but the advantage that Alice (A.) the daughter of J.Ashton and to bar the plaintiff by a satisfaction made to a stranger, would be unreasonable (encounter reason)
Sjt Pygot (for D): it seems to me the contrary, and as to this (that is said that) the communication was irrelevant (n' est pas a purpose), this is not so, because the communication is alleged to prove that the marriage of the said Nicholas (N.) was worth (vaudra) 450 marks, and so when the sum was mitigated to 350 marks, and also the marriage gave to the said Nicholas (N.) to the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff had a profit by this, that is, that where he (plaintiff) ought to have paid 450 marks, thus now he ought to pay only 350 marks, so that 100 marks are in the plaintiff's advantage, and also when it was agreed that he (plaintiff knight's daughter) ought to have Nicholas his (T. Wortheley, the other trespasser's) son in marriage, and he had fulfilled (perimplie) this agreement, this was in satisfaction in itself, because the marriage of my son and heir belongs to me, because I will have a writ of Trespass for taking my son and heir with force and arms', and (I will) recover damages immediately (maint-) regarding the marriage, so when the marriage was given to the plaintiff, this was an advantage to him for the marriage of his daughter, so the plaintiff is satisfied, so
Billyng CJKB said that if Nicholas (N.) be taken out of his (father T. Wortheley's) wardship, that he (the father) will not have a writ of Ravishment of ward, but he will have a good writ of Trespass on the case, and recover his damages,
and then Sjt Pygot (for D) said more for his plea that an accord was made before the marriage, and also it was agreed that T. Wortheley ought to make a deed and deliver it to the plaintiff (knight), by which a certain jointure ought to be made to Nicholas and to Alice his wife, and also he ought to give to the plaintiff at the time of the marriage, a ton of red wine, and said in fact that he had delivered the aforesaid deed, and the wine according to the condition and aforesaid judgment,
and on this the parties demurred in judgment for two causes, one whether this matter proved a satisfaction or not, (and) another (cause) because this action was founded by reason (cause) of an act of Parliament made against the defendant and (against) one W. so that T. Wortheley was a stranger to this act, whether or not he ought to plead his satisfaction had by him, against whom no action is given by reason of this statute
Manuscripts Mss Notes Editing Notes Errors
Translations/Editions
Plea Roll Record Year Record Plaintiffs Record Defendants Last Update
0 2006-07-29
Keywords
Knight
Count
Force
Arms
With Force And Arms
Vi Et Armis
Breaking (debruse)
House
Housebreaking
Wife
Servant
Ouster
Supposition
County
Communication
Son
Marriage
Espousal
Daughter
Gift
Agreement
(Marriage Settlement)
Recoupment
Recouping
Abatement
Satisfaction
Fullness
Full Satisfaction
In Fact
Fact
Judgment
Action
Plea
No Plea
Cause
Bar
Cause To Bar
Notwithstanding
Payment
Accord
Remittance
Understanding (entendue)
Finality
Conclusion
Final Conclusion
Solely
Recompense
Recompensation
Compensation
Bar Of Action
Quid Pro Quo
Dato
Acquittance
Quitement
Without Taking Anything
Benefit
Advantage
Stranger
Unreasonable
Against Reason
Seeming
Contrary
Irrelevance
Relevance
N' Est Pas A Purpose
Purpose
Allegation
Proof
Value (vaudra)
Worth
Sum
Mitigation (mittigat)
Sum In Mitigation
Profit
In Advantage
Fulfilment (perimplie)
Performance (perimplie)
Heir
Belonging (appartient)
Trespass Quare Vi Et Armis
Filium & Haeredum Cepit
Taking Son And Heir
Recovery
Damages
Immediacy (maint-)
Regard
Wardship (garde)
Ravishment
Writ Of Ravishment Of Ward
Ward
Good Writ
Trespass On The Case
Writ Of Trespass On The Case
Deed
Making A Deed
Delivery
Certainty
Jointure
Time
Tun (ton)
Wine
Red Wine
Condition
Party
Demurrer
Demurrer In Judgment
cause
Matter
Foundation
Foundation Of Action
Act
Parliament
Act Of Parliament
Pleading
By Reason Of
Reason
Statute
Previous Record Next Record

Return to Search