Document 5/3/0 (SHS Misc. xi, 109-113)
- Description
- 159. William le Park was attached to answer David Whanwhan on a plea respecting a mare. The sureties for prosecuting are Llywelyn Veil and Geoffrey, messenger. William presented himself but David has not prosecuted. Therefore William is acquitted. David and his sureties are in mercy. (Amercement 12d.)
160. Fulk fitz Warin and David, his yeoman, were attached to answer Gilbert Lindsay on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when on Friday the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul [29 June] he came to Arbroath and, acting as marshal for his lord the earl of Hereford, took lodgings in the town for the earl’s company, he found in a house horses and goods to the value of £20. He delivered these lodgings to Fulk’s yeoman David for the use of his lord, intending that the goods therein be reserved to the earl. Thereafter Fulk and David came and alienated a horse worth 10 marks. They are still seised of it, to Gilbert’s damage of 100s. etc. Thereon he brings suit. Fulk and David come and deny force and injury when etc. They say they never took lodgings from Gilbert on condition that their contents be reserved for the use of the earl. They ask for enquiry to be made, as does Gilbert. Later they put themselves to arbitration and are agreed. Fulk puts himself on the country. The amercement is pardoned by the marshal. A similar verdict is returned in the following plea. (Amercement pardoned)
161. Gilbert Lindsay and Michael de Forneys were attached to answer Fulk fitz Warin on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Monday next after the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul [2 July] they came to Arbroath and illegally took from his lodgings and led away three horses, to Fulk’s damage etc. Thereon he brings suit. Gilbert and Michael come and deny force and injury when etc, and say that they did not lead away any of Fulk’s horses from his lodgings. They ask for enquiry to be made, as does Fulk. Later they are agreed as appears above. (Amercement pardoned)
162. Robert de Percy was attached to answer the marshal on a plea respecting an alienated mare. Robert does not come and is therefore in mercy. (Amercement 2s.)
163. Thomas Brown was attached to answer Master Thomas the physician on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on the day following the feast of St John the Baptist [25 June] Thomas Brown came to his lodgings in Perth, took from his lodgings and carried off a coat of mail, value 20s., a tabard, value a half mark, and a little sack with boxes of ointment, value 100s., to Master Thomas the physician’s damage of 100s. Thereon he brings suit. Thomas Brown comes and denies force and injury when etc, and says that on that day he did not take or carry off the coat of mail, tabard and sack. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Thomas. Later Thomas the physician has not prosecuted. Therefore he is in mercy. The amercement is pardoned at the instance of the earl of Warenne. (Amercement pardoned)
164. Hugh Bakeler was attached to answer Alan of Pennington on a plea that when Alan delivered to Hugh 50 oxen and cows to safeguard for him until he should return from England, Hugh alienated 35 oxen and cows, each worth 5s., to Alan’s damage of 100s. Thereon he brings suit. Hugh, who is present, is unable to deny this. Therefore it is considered that Alan should recover 7 marks against Hugh for the animals, together with his damages, which are estimated at 40s. Hugh is sent to prison until etc. (To prison)
165. Alebinus of Whelton was attached to answer the king on a plea of trespass. Whereon John Lovell, acting as the king’s marshal in his Scottish army, complains that while on Monday next after the feast of St John the Baptist [2 July] he made a proclamation in the king’s name that no one under pain of forfeiture should in any way go before the banner of the constable and marshal, nevertheless Alebinus had the temerity to presume to do so at Clunie, notwithstanding that proclamation. Thereupon the marshal came and attached Alebinus as one who had shown contempt for the king’s precept, together with two horses which were found with him. These he committed to the custody of one of his yeomen. When he refused to permit Alebinus to clear himself the latter and others of his company effected a rescue, in contempt of the king and to the marshal’s damage of 100 marks. He asks on behalf of the king for enquiry to be made. Alebinus comes and denies force and injury when etc, and says that he was not aware of the proclamation. But because Alebinus is unable to deny the rest the marshal, on behalf of the king, prays judgment. With respect to the rescue Alebinus says that he is in no wise guilty as charged at the king’s suit. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does the marshal for the king. Therefore the sheriff is ordered etc. The jurors say on their oath that Alebinus effected the escape as the marshal charged and that he bears responsibility for it. Therefore it is considered that the marshal should retain the profits of the attachment as is his right by forfeiture. Alebinus is sent to prison at the king’s will until etc. (To prison)
- Firm date
- Tuesday 10 July 1296
- Dating Notes
- Tuesday next after St Thomas the martyr’s day, 24 Edward I
- Place date (modern)
- Montrose
- Place date (document)
- Monros
- Related Place
- Montrose
- Source for Data Entry
- C.J. Neville, ‘A plea roll of Edward I’s army in Scotland, 1296’, SHS Miscellany XI (1990), 7-133; some entries included in CDS, ii, no. 822
- Trad. ID
- SHS Misc. xi, 109-113
- Calendar number
- 5/3/None
- Charter type
- English Royal Administration
- Language
- Latin
- Notes
- CDS, ii, no. 822