Document 5/3/0 (SHS Misc. xi, 91-93, 115-21)
- Description
- Gaol delivery at Aberdeen, Wednesday next before the Feast of St Margaret the virgin, 24 Edward I (18 July 1296)
128. John Page was taken and imprisoned. And because no one sues John, therefore he is acquitted.
129. Henry the woodward, William Carter, William de Berneston, Henry le Tene and John Organ were attached for the death of a Welshman killed in Roxburgh, namely one of the company of the earl of Hereford. Charged with the offence in the presence of the steward they say that they are not guilty of the death of the Welshman and put themselves on the country. The jurors say on their oath that Henry and the others are not guilty of the death of the Welshman and are therefore acquitted. (Acquitted)
Pleas of the army at Aberdeen, Monday next before the Feast of St Margaret the virgin, 24 Edward I (16 July 1296)
166. Oliver del Ewe, Henry de Worsop and William of London bring a suit of trespass against Thomas de Topgrave and Jordan of Hartlepool. Thomas and Jordan, who are present, are unable to deny the charge. Therefore they are sent to prison until etc. (To prison)
167. Walter de Angerton was attached to answer Huna ap Tudor on a plea of robbery of a mare. Whereon he complains that when on Sunday next before the feast of St Margaret the virgin in the said year [15 July 1296] the mare was alienated from him and he found it in Walter’s keeping, Walter illegally withholds the mare, to his damage etc. He asks for enquiry to be made. Walter comes and says that he bought the mare in the king’s market in Aberdeen. He also asks for enquiry to be made. The jurors say on their oath that the mare is the legal chattel of Huna ap Tudor and that Walter did not buy it, but rather acquired it by evil means. Therefore it is considered that Huna should have the mare. Walter is condemned to prison until etc. He is mainprised by Ralph of Newcastle and has died. (Amercement)
168. John de Morley, marshal of Robert of Tattershall, was attached to answer Walter Fleming, who sues on behalf of the abbot of Lindores, on a plea that John return to the abbot 30 animals each worth 4s. which were found in his seisin. John comes and says that he bought the animals from John de Renham and John de Conan, men of the steward. Thereupon he calls them to warrant etc. John de Renham comes on his own and John Conan’s behalf and vouches John de Morley to warrant, therefore etc. Thereafter John de Renham further calls to warrant with respect to the sale of the animals one Gilbert ‘the Red’ of Coull. Gilbert comes and at first denies the vouch to warrant but later acknowledges the sale of the animals. Therefore it is considered that John de Morley, John de Renham and John Conan are acquitted. Walter is to recover against Gilbert the animals or their value. Gilbert is in mercy. He is condemned to prison until etc. He died in prison. (Died in prison)
169. Alan de Rokeby brings a suit against Nicholas, physician of Ireland, that a horse was alienated from him by Nicholas. Alan calls to warrant John Francis, who is in the service of the bishop of Durham. He requests the assistance of the court to secure warranty and this is granted. Therefore the sheriff is ordered etc. Alan the complainant finds Henry Maunsel as a surety for prosecuting, and Nicholas, as the owner by warrant, finds as surety Sir Miles of Rutherford. John comes and vouches Nicholas to warrant. Therefore Nicholas is acquitted. John restores the horse to Alan by licence. John is in mercy, namely for 12d. (Amercement 12d., paid)
170. Honorius de Staunford was attached to answer Robert de Ros on a plea that he return to Robert 21 animals, namely oxen and cows, which Honorius illegally withholds to Robert’s damage. Thereon he brings suit. Honorius comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he bought the animals on the preceding Sunday from Henry Bray and Richard of Ireland, whom he calls to warrant thereon. Richard of Ireland comes and vouches to warrant Honorius’s claim to the animals, and says that he and other Irishmen came to acquire them as spoils of war. And because it is found that Richard stole the animals subsequent to a proclamation of peace granted to Robert, therefore it is considered that Robert should recover the animals against Honorius and that Honorius should be permitted to recover against Richard the value of his purchase. Richard is committed to prison until etc. He makes a fine of 40d. (Amercement 40d., paid)
171. David of Twynham was attached to answer the marshal on a plea of a trespass done in the king’s army. He comes and puts himself on the country and makes a fine of 2s. (Amercement 2s., paid)
172. Walter Head was attached to answer Geoffrey, lay brother, on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on the preceding Friday Walter came to Aberdeen and assaulted him with a stave and seriously wounded him in the head, to Geoffrey’s damage of 20s. Thereon he brings suit. Walter comes and says that he did not assault or wound Geoffrey as the latter charged. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Geoffrey. Later Geoffrey has not prosecuted him and is therefore in mercy. (Amercement)
173. Gregory, cobbler, was attached to answer Madog Clok on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Gregory came illegally to Aberdeen and assaulted him about the head and mistreated him, to [Madog’s] damage of 20s. Thereon he brings suit. Gregory comes and says that Madog assaulted him and, while defending himself, he injured Madog. And because he acknowledges the trespass therefore it is considered that Madog should recover his damages, which are assessed at 2s., and that he should remain in prison until etc. He makes a fine of 6d. (Amercement 6d.)
174. William de la Pole was attached to answer Robert Scott of Hardelawe on a plea of debt. Whereon he complains that while in Edinburgh he sold to William 66 measures of beer, each measure worth 8d., making a total of 44s., William illegally withholds from him the 44s., to Robert’s damage of 20s.. Thereon he brings suit. William comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he never took anything from Robert, but rather that he found the beer in his lodgings in Aberdeen. The beer he therefore took from the house and not from Robert. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Robert. Therefore the sheriff is ordered etc., to summon etc.
- Firm date
- Monday 16 July 1296 X Wednesday 18 July 1296
- Dating Notes
- Monday next before the Feast of St Margaret the virgin, 24 Edward I and Wednesday next before the Feast of St Margaret the virgin, 24 Edward I
- Place date (modern)
- Aberdeen
- Place date (document)
- Aberden
- Related Place
- Aberdeen
- 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, 91-93, 115-21
- Calendar number
- 5/3/None
- Charter type
- English Royal Administration
- Language
- Latin
- Notes
- CDS, ii, no. 822