Henry Dingley jr., gentleman v. Arthur Ordwaye and Margery his wife
Evesham attorneys: Richard Cresheld, John Stoneman
Error in king's bench (Michaelmas term, 1607) on an action in the court of Evesham, Worcestershire
AALT images for Hamerton v. Milner This action of error on a case of ejectment in the court of Evesham
proceeded without raising perhaps the most interesting aspect of the
case. A Thomas Wattson was both mayor and the lessor. Frequently
the lessor was the actual plaintiff (so that Dingley here would have had
nothing at stake in this case) and thus Wattson could have been in fact
presiding in his own case. The case also provides another example of
the use of certiorari, although without any indication of what the issue
of the certiorari was. The Lord king sent to the mayor, recorder, and chief alderman of his
borough of Evesham his writ close in these words: James by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, and
Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the mayor, recorder, and chief
alderman of his borough of Evesham, greetings. Because in the
record and process and also in the rendering of judgment of a plea
that was before you in our court of the abovesaid borough without
our writ according to the custom of the same borough between
Henry Dingley jr., gentleman and Arthur Ordwaye and Margery his
wife of a certain trespass and ejectio firme inflicted on the same
Henry by the aforementioned Arthur and Margery as it is said
manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Arthur
and Margery as we have received from his complaint, we, wanting
the error if any there was to be corrected in due manner and full
and swift justice to be done to the abovesaid parties in this part,
order you that if judgment has been rendered thereof then you
should send distinctly and openly the abovesaid record and process
with everything touching them to us under your seal, and this writ,
so that we have them on the morrow of Martinmas wherever we
shall then be in England so that, the abovesaid record and process
having been inspected, we may make to be done thereof for the
correction of that error what of right and according to the law and
custom of our realm of England should be done. Tested me myself
at Westminster September 12 in the 5th year of our reign of
England, France, and Ireland and the 41st of Scotland [September
12, 1607]. The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ
follow in these words: The Borough of Evesham in the county of Worcestershire. Pleas
held in the court of record of the lord king of the borough of
Evesham in the county abovesaid within the guildhall of the
abovesaid borough according to the liberty and privileges of the
same borough granted by virtue of certain letters patent of the said
lord king sealed under his great seal bearing date at Westminster
on April 3 in the 3rd year of his reign of England, France, and
Ireland and the 38th of Scotland [April 3, 1605] before Thomas
Wattson armiger mayor, Henry Frowyke armiger recorder, and
Thomas Bigges knight senior alderman of the abovesaid borough
on May 26 in the 5th year of the reign of the said our Lord James by
the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of
the faith etc., and 40th of Scotland [May 26, 1607]. At this court comes Henry Dingley, jr., gentleman, in his proper
person and complains against Arthur Ordwaye and Margery his
wife concerning a plea of trespass and ejectio firme to the damage
of £60. And he finds pledges to prosecute his abovesaid complaint
against the abovesaid Arthur and Margery, scilt., John Doo and
Richard Roo. And he seeks process thereof to be made for him
against the aforementioned Arthur and Margery according to the
liberty and privileges of the abovesaid borough. And it is granted
to him. And thereon according to the liberty and privileges of the
abovesaid borough it is ordered to Richard Brantley and Richard
Jhans serjeants at mace of the abovesaid borough and ministers of
the abovesaid court that they attach the abovesaid Arthur and
Margery if etc., so that they be at the said lord king’s next court of
the abovesaid borough to be held in the abovesaid guildhall before
the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman on
Tuesday, scilt., June 2 then next following [June 2, 1607] to
answer the aforementioned Henry Dingley concerning the
abovesaid plea etc. The same day is given to the same Henry
Dingley there etc. And thereon the same Henry Dingley puts in his place
Richard Cresheld his attorney against the aforementioned Arthur
and Margery in the abovesaid plea etc. At which certain said lord king’s next court of the abovesaid
borough held in the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., the said
June 2 [June 2, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder,
and senior alderman comes the abovesaid Henry Dingley by his
abovesaid attorney. And the abovesaid serjeants at mace of the
abovesaid borough and ministers of the abovesaid court return the
abovesaid precept served and executed in everything, viz., that
they by virtue of the abovesaid precept attached the abovesaid
Arthur and Margery, scilt., by John Denn and Richard Fenn, so that
they be at the same court to answer the aforementioned Henry
Dingley in the abovesaid plea as it was ordered to them. And thereon the abovesaid Arthur and Margery at the same
court solemnly exacted in their proper persons come and put in
their place John Stoneman their attorney against the abovesaid
Henry Dingley in the abovesaid plea. And thereon day is given both to the aforementioned Henry
Dingley and to the abovesaid Arthur and Margery to be here at the
said lord king’s next court of the abovesaid borough to be held in
the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., June 9 then next
following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior
alderman. At which certain said lord king’s next court of the abovesaid
borough held in the abovesaid guildhall on the said June 9 [June 9,
1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior
alderman come both the aforementioned Henry Dingley and the
abovesaid Arthur and Margery by their abovesaid attorneys. And thereon the abovesaid Henry Dingley by narrating
against the aforementioned Arthur and Margery in the abovesaid
plea by his attorney complains for this, viz., that, whereas Thomas
Wattson gentleman by his certain indenture, the other part of which
sealed by the seal of the same Thomas bearing the date of May 12
in the 5th year of the reign of our Lord James now king of England
etc., [May 12, 1607] the same Henry proffers here in court, at
Evesham abovesaid and within the jurisdiction of this court
demised, granted, and handed over at farm to the aforementioned
Henry Dingley one messuage and 100 [acres of land] with
appurtenances in Bengworth abovesaid and within the jurisdiction
of this court called Holtes together with all other messuages, lands,
tenements, meadows, rough pastures, pastures, pasturage,
commons, profits, easements, emoluments, and hereditaments
whatsoever in Bengworth abovesaid and within the jurisdiction of
this court abovesaid late in the tenure of Margaret Ordwaye widow
deceased to have and hold the abovesaid messuages and tenements
and other the premisses with appurtenances to the aforementioned
Henry Dyngley from January 1 [IMG 1769] last past before the
date of the same indenture until the end and term of two years then
next following fully completed and ended, by virtue of which
certain demise the same Henry entered in the messuages and
tenements abovesaid and other the premisses with appurtenances
and was thereof possessed until the abovesaid Margery then and
still the wife of the abovesaid Arthur afterwards, scilt., May 13 in
the abovesaid year, with force and arms etc., here at Evesham and
within the jurisdiction of the abovesaid court entered into the
messuage and tenements and other the premisses abovesaid with
appurtenances on the possession of the same Henry Dingley and
ejected, expelled, and removed the same Henry from his abovesaid
farm thereof, his abovesaid term not yet finished, and they held the
same Henry out of his possession thereof and still do so, and
inflicted other enormities on him etc., against the peace of the said
lord king now etc., and to the damage of the same Henry of £60,
and thereof he produces suit etc. And thereon at this same court the abovesaid Arthur and
Margery by their abovesaid attorney come and defend force and
injury when etc. And he seeks license thereof to emparl until the
next court of the said lord king to be held within the guildhall of
the abovesaid borough on Tuesday, scilt., June 16 then next
following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder and senior
alderman. And it is granted to them. The same day is given to the
aforementioned Henry Dingley here etc. At which certain next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid
borough held in the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., the said
June 16 [June 16, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor,
recorder, and senior alderman came the abovesaid parties by their
abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Arthur and Margery by
their abovesaid attorney come as before and defend force and
injury when etc. And they seek license further to emparl thereof
until the next said lord king’s court to be held in the guildhall of
the abovesaid borough on Tuesday, scilt., June 23 then next
following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior
alderman, and it is granted to them by the assent of the attorney of
the aforementioned Henry Dingley. The same day is given to the
aforementioned Henry Dingley here etc. At which certain said lord king’s next court held within the
guildhall of the abovesaid borough on Tuesday the said June 23
[June 23, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and
senior alderman come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid
attorneys. And the abovesaid Arthur and Margery by John
Stoneman their abovesaid attorney come and defend force and
injury when etc. And they say that the abovesaid plaintiff [ought]
not [be able to have his] action etc., because they say that as to the
coming with force and arms and the whole abovesaid trespass
except the abovesaid ejectment the abovesaid Margery is guilty in
nothing thereof. And of this they put themselves on the
countryside. And the abovesaid plaintiff similarly. And as to the
abovesaid ejectment supposed above to have been made the
abovesaid Arthur and Margery say that long before the abovesaid
time at which etc., and at the abovesaid time at which etc., the
abovesaid tenements were and are customary lands and parcel of
the manor of Bengworth abovesaid and are and were from time
whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary demisable and
demised by the lord of the abovesaid manor through his seneschal
for the time being and to each person or whatsoever persons
wanting to receive them at term of life at the will of the lord
according to the custom of the abovesaid manor by court roll of
that manor; and the abovesaid Arthur and Margery say that there is
had and from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the
contrary has been had such a custom within the abovesaid manor
that whenever the lord of the abovesaid manor through his
seneschal should demise or grant any customary lands or tenements
parcel of the abovesaid manor and to be held of the same manor by
copy or copies of the court rolls [IMG 1770] or to the same
persons to whom the abovesaid lands or tenements abovesaid are
demised or granted in the abovesaid form he or they will have and
hold them to themselves and their assigns for term of life at the
will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor,
and after the death of such person or such persons the relict or
relicts of such person or persons will have and hold them while she
or they remain single and chaste or they remain at the will of the
lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor, and that the
executor or administrator of such relict or relicts will have and hold
them after the death of such relict or such relicts for one whole
year next following the death of such relict or such relicts; and
further they say that a certain John Ballard late abbot of the late
monastery of Evesham abovesaid long before the time at which
etc., was seised of the manor abovesaid with appurtenances in his
demesne as of fee in right of his late monastery abovesaid, and thus
thereof being seised the same abbot long before the time at which
etc., viz., August 12 in the 29th year of the reign of the Lord Henry
the eighth of his name late king of England [August 12, 1537] by a
certain George Throckmorton knight then seneschal of the lord late
abbot of the abovesaid manor at his court of the abovesaid manor
then held at the same manor granted the abovesaid tenements to a
certain William Ordway [who] then had as wife a certain Margaret
to have and hold the abovesaid tenements to the aforementioned
William Ordwaye for term of his life at the will of the lord
according to the custom of the abovesaid manor by copy of the
court rolls of the same manor, by virtue of which grant the same
William Ordwaye entered into the abovesaid tenements and was
thereof seised in his demesne as of his free tenement for term of his
life at the will of the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid
manor; afterwards the same William Ordway being seised thus of
the abovesaid tenements died, and the abovesaid Margaret survived
him and being his wife relict and remaining single and chaste
entered on the abovesaid tenements and was thereof seised in her
demesne as of her free tenement for term of her life being single
and chaste at the will of the lord according to the abovesaid
custom; and afterwards thus being single and chaste and seised
thereof at Bengworth abovesaid on November 16 last past she
died; after whose death the administration of the goods and chattels
of the same Margaret was committed to the aforementioned Arthur
by a certain John Amye doctor of laws ordinary of that place; by
virtue of which commission the aforementioned Arthur entered
into the abovesaid tenements and was thereof possessed for the
term of one year already running and beginning from the abovesaid
November 16 at the will of the lord according to the custom of the
abovesaid manor; and that the abovesaid Thomas Watson
gentleman at the time at which it is supposed that the same Thomas
demised the abovesaid tenements in the abovesaid form had
nothing thereof except by color [IMG 0960] of a certain charter of
feoffment made thereof to him and his heirs by the lord late abbot
and his convent long before the abovesaid grant made to the
aforementioned William Ordwaye of the same tenements in the
abovesaid form whereby nothing of the same tenements ever
transferred into the possession of the abovesaid Thomas Wattson,
whereby the abovesaid Margery by the precept of the same Arthur
entered into the abovesaid tenements on the possession of the same
Henry Dingley and ejected, expelled and removed the same Henry
as well he might. And this they are ready to verify, wherefore they
seek judgment if the abovesaid Henry ought to have or maintain
his abovesaid action against them etc. And thereon the abovesaid Henry Dingley by this abovesaid
attorney sought at the same court a day thereof to replicate until in
the next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid borough to be held
in the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., June 30 then next
following [June 30, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor,
recorder, and senior alderman, and it is granted to him. The same
day is given to the aforementioned Arthur and Margery here etc. At which certain next said lord king’s court held within the
guildhall of the abovesaid borough on the said June 30 [June 30,
1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior
alderman come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys.
And the abovesaid Henry Dingley then and there by his abovesaid
attorney seeks day further to replicate until the next said lord
king’s court of the abovesaid borough to be held within the
abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., July 7 then next following
before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman,
and it is granted to him by the assent of the abovesaid attorney of
the aforementioned Arthur and Margery. The same day is given to
the aforementioned Arthur and Margery here etc. At which certain said lord king’s next court held within the
guildhall of the abovesaid borough on the said July 7 [July 7,
1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior
alderman come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys.
And the abovesaid Henry Dingley then and there by his abovesaid
attorney by replicating [says] that he by anything alleged by
pleading by the abovesaid Arthur and Margery above ought not to
be precluded from having his abovesaid action against the same
Arthur and Margery, because he says that the abovesaid Margery
from her own proper injury at the abovesaid time at which etc.,
entered into the messuage, tenements, and other abovesaid
premisses on the possession of the same Henry and ejected,
expelled, and removed the same Henry from his possession and
held him out of his possession thereof and still does so in the
manner and form as the abovesaid Henry above complains against
them. And by protesting that the abovesaid plea of the abovesaid
Arthur and Margaret above pleaded in bar is less sufficient in law
to preclude the same Henry from having his abovesaid action
against the same Arthur and Margery, by protesting also that long
before the time at which etc., and at the abovesaid time etc., the
abovesaid tenements were not and are not customary lands and
parcel of the manor of Bengworth abovesaid and are not and from
time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary were not
demisable and demised by the lord of the abovesaid manor through
his seneschal for the time being to each person or whatsoever
persons wanting to accept them at term of life at the will of the lord
according to the custom of the abovesaid manor by the court rolls
of that manor in the manner and form as the abovesaid Arthur and
Margery above by pleading alleged, by protesting further also that
the administration of the goods and chattels of the abovesaid
Margaret were not committed to the aforementioned Arthur as
above in pleading they similarly alleged, without this that there is
had from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary
such a custom within the manor abovesaid that whenever the lord
of the abovesaid manor through his seneschal should demise or
grant any customary lands or tenements parcel of the abovesaid
manor and to be held from the same manor by copy or copies of
the court rolls of the same manor to any person or persons to have
and hold to the same person or the same persons to whom the lands
or tenements abovesaid are demised or granted in the abovesaid
form will have and hold them to themselves and their assigns for
term of life at the will of the lord according to the custom of the
abovesaid manor, and after the death of such person or such
persons the relict or relicts of such person or persons will have and
hold them while she or they remain single and chaste at the will of
the lord according to the custom of the abovesaid manor and that
the executor or administrator of such relict or such relicts will have
and hold them after the death of such relict or such relicts for one
whole year next after the death of such relict or such relicts in
manner and form as the same Arthur and Margery by pleading
above alleged. And this he is ready to verify, whereof since the
abovesaid Arthur and Margery above acknowledge the abovesaid
ejectment, the same Henry seeks judgment and his abovesaid
damages by occasion of that ejectment to be adjudicated to him etc.
And thereon the abovesaid Arthur and Margery at the same
court by their abovesaid attorney seek a day thereof to rejoin until
the next said lord king’s next court of the abovesaid borough to be
held within the abovesaid guildhall on Tuesday, scilt., July 14 then
next following [July 14, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor,
recorder, and senior alderman. And it is granted to them etc. The
same day is given to the aforementioned Henry Dingley here etc. At which certain next said lord king’s court held within the
guildhall of the abovesaid borough on July 14 [July 14, 1607]
before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman
came the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the
abovesaid Arthur and Margery by their abovesaid attorneys further
seek thereof day to rejoin until the next said lord king’s court of
the abovesaid borough to be held within the abovesaid guildhall on
Tuesday, scilt., July 21 then next following before the
aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman. And it is
granted to them by the assent of the abovesaid attorney of the
abovesaid Henry Dingley. The same day is given to the
aforementioned Henry Dingley here etc. At which certain said lord king’s court held within the guildhall of
the abovesaid borough on the said July 21 [July 21, 1607] before
the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman come the
abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid
Arthur and Margery then and there proffer a said lord king’s
certain writ of certiorari emanating out of the court of chancery.
And they seek that the said writ be allocated here in the same court,
and it is granted to them etc. And thereon at the same court day is
given both to the aforementioned Henry Dingley and to the
aforementioned Arthur and Margery to be here at the next said lord
king’s court to be held within the guildhall of the abovesaid
borough on Tuesday, July 28 then next following before the
aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman, until which
day process in and on the complaint in the abovesaid plea was
continued. At which certain said lord king’s next court held within the
guildhall of the abovesaid borough on Tuesday, scilt., on July 28
[July 28, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and
senior alderman came the abovesaid parties by their attorneys
[IMG 1771] abovesaid. And day is given further both to the
aforementioned Henry Dingley and to the aforementioned Arthur
and Margery to be at the next said lord king’s court to be held
within the guildhall of the abovesaid borough on Tuesday, scilt.,
August 4 then next following before the aforementioned mayor,
recorder, and senior alderman until which day process in and on
the complaint and plea abovesaid was continued. [Further continuations: From August 4 to August 11, 1607 From August 11 to August 18, 1607] At which said lord king’s court held within the guildhall of the
abovesaid borough on August 18 [August 18, 1607] before the
aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior alderman come the
abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid
Henry Dingley in his proper person then and there proffers a
certain said lord king’s writ to proceed emanating out of the court
of chancery directed to the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and
senior alderman ordering the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and
senior alderman by the abovesaid writ that they proceed with that
speed of which they are capable according to the liberty and
privileges of the abovesaid borough. And he asks that it be
allocated, and it is granted etc. Thereon at the same court comes the abovesaid Henry
Dingley by his abovesaid attorney. And the abovesaid Arthur and
Margery say nothing to preclude the abovesaid Henry from his
abovesaid action. Thereon the abovesaid Henry seeks judgment
and his damages by occasion of the trespass and ejectment
abovesaid to be adjudicated to him. Therefore it is considered by the same court that the
abovesaid Henry Dingley recover against the abovesaid Margery
his abovesaid term as well as his damages by occasion of the
abovesaid trespass and ejectment. And because it is not known
what damages the abovesaid Henry Dingley sustained both by
occasion of the abovesaid trespass and ejectment and by his
outlays and costs put out on his suit in this part, therefore it is
ordered to the aforementioned Richard Brantley and Richard Jhans
serjeants at mace of the abovesaid borough and ministers of the
abovesaid court that they or one of them according to the liberty
and privileges of the abovesaid borough make to come at the next
said lord king’s court of the abovesaid borough to be held within
the guildhall abovesaid on Tuesday, scilt., August 25 then next
following before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and senior
alderman 12 free and lawful men of the abovesaid borough
diligently to inquire on their oath what damages the abovesaid
Henry Dingley sustained both by the before set out occasion and
for his abovesaid outlays and costs. At which certain next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid
borough held in the abovesaid guildhall on the said August 25
[August 25, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, recorder, and
senior alderman comes the abovesaid Henry Dingley by his
abovesaid attorney. And the abovesaid serjeants at mace of the
abovesaid borough and ministers of the abovesaid court return the
abovesaid precept directed to them in the abovesaid form served
and executed in everything, viz., that they made to come 12 free
and lawful men of the abovesaid borough as it was ordered to
them, viz., William Allen, Robert Brantley, John Preedye,
Bartholomew Collye, Richard James, jr., Robert Tandye, Richard
Archard, John Hodges, Alexander Angell, Phillip Marshall,
Thomas Curteys, and John Tysoe, who, exacted and sworn to [tell]
the truth concerning the premisses, say on their oath that the
abovesaid Henry Dingley sustained damages by occasion of the
abovesaid trespass and ejectment beyond his outlays and costs put
out by him on his suit in this part at £18 12s, and for those outlays
and costs at 1d. Therefore it is considered here by the said lord
king’s court of the abovesaid borough that the abovesaid Henry
Dingley recover against the abovesaid Arthur and Margery his
abovesaid damages found by the abovesaid jury in the abovesaid as
well as 43s adjudicated by the said lord king’s court here of the
abovesaid for his outlays and costs by his assent by way of
increment, which certain damages all amount to £20 15s1d, and let
the abovesaid Margery be taken etc. Afterwards, scilt., on Monday next after the morrow of St. Martin this
same term before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid
Arthur and Margery his wife in their proper persons. And the abovesaid
Margery renders herself to the prison of the marshal of the marshalsea of
the lord king before the king himself by occasion of the abovesaid
judgment; she is committed to the marshalsea etc. And immediately she
says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of
the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred in this, scilt., that whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid
Thomas Watson mentioned in the abovesaid narration demised,
granted, and handed over at farm to the aforementioned Henry
Dingley a messuage and tenement with appurtenances in
Bengworth abovesaid and within the jurisdiction of the abovesaid
court called Holtes together with all other messuages, lands,
tenements, meadows, rough pastures, pastures, pasturages,
commons, profits, easements, emoluments, and hereditaments
whatsoever in Bengworth and within the jurisdiction of the
abovesaid court late in the tenure of Margaret Ordway widow
deceased to have and hold the messuage and tenements abovesaid
and other the premisses with appurtenances to the aforementioned
Henry Dingley from January 1 last past before the date of the
abovesaid indenture until the end and term of two years then next
following fully to be completed and ended, for this that no
certitude is expressed in certain concerning the abovesaid things
demised specified in the abovesaid narration of the aforementioned
Henry Dingley nor concerning the quantities or numbers of acres
of the same as by law in this part ought to have been done,
manifestly it was erred, as above appears of record. And further in the record and process abovesaid as well as in the
rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred in this
that by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid judgment
rendered in the abovesaid form was rendered against the
aforementioned Arthur and Margery because the same Arthur and
Margery said nothing in bar of the abovesaid action of the
aforementioned Henry Dingley, whereas by the abovesaid record it
appears that the same Arthur and Margery among other things
pleaded that there was a certain custom within the manor of
Bengworth abovesaid as is contained in the abovesaid bar of the
same Arthur and Margery, to which certain plea of the same Arthur
and Margery the abovesaid Henry Dingley [IMG 0962] by
replicating among other things traversed the same custom, and for
this that the abovesaid Henry Dingley did not plead to issue of the
countryside between the parties abovesaid in this part on the
traverse for that, as by the law of the land in the abovesaid case he
ought to have pleaded, manifestly it was erred, as above appears of
record. And the same Arthur and Margery seek a writ of the lord king to warn
the abovesaid Henry Dingley to be before the lord king to hear the
record and process abovesaid. And it is granted to them etc. Whereby it
is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., he should make known to
the aforementioned Henry that he be before the lord king on the Octaves
of St. Hilary wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if
etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned
Arthur and Margery etc. And thereon come William Farmer of Evesham
in the abovesaid county yeoman, Michael Averell of Evesham abovesaid
yeoman, Thomas Hill of Bidford in the county of Warwickshire yeoman,
and Roland Katherens of the parish of St. Andrew in Holborne London
yeoman in their proper persons, and they mainperned to have the body of
the abovesaid Margery before the lord king at the aforementioned term
wherever etc., and thus from day to day until etc., and that the same
Arthur and Margery prosecute the said writ of error with effect and that
if it happen that the abovesaid judgment is affirmed against the
aforementioned Arthur and Margery that then the abovesaid damages
adjudicated above in the abovesaid form against the same Arthur and
Margery as well as all the outlays and costs that would be adjudicated
here by the court of the lord king to the aforementioned Henry Dingley
by occasion of the delay of the abovesaid execution according to the
form of the statute etc., would be made from the lands and chattels of
them and each of them and levied to the use of the abovesaid Henry
Dingley if it happen that the same Arthur and Margery not at all pay
those damages, outlays, and costs to the aforementioned Henry or the
aforementioned Margery not render herself to the abovesaid prison of
the marshal of the marshalsea of the lord king by that occasion etc.
0958,
0959,
1769,
1770,
0960,
0961,
1771,
1772,
0962
