James Webster v. William Hulle cleric
Hereford attorney: Roger Mower
Error in king's bench (Michaelmas term, 1537) on an action in the court of Hereford, Herefordshire
AALT images for Webster v. Hulle This action of error on a case from the pie powder court of Hereford
retails a purported action of covenant on an oral agreement. The oral
agreement seems to have been nothing more than an agreement to pay
a sum on money as the purchase price for cloth, and the ability to sue
for such oral covenants was allegedly part of the custom of Hereford.
No assignment of errors was made in king’s bench. The lord king sent to the mayor and bailiffs of the city of Hereford his
writ close in these words: Henry VIII by the grace of God king of England and France,
defender of the faith, lord of Ireland, and on earth the supreme
head of the English church to the mayor and bailiffs of the city of
Hereford, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in
the rendering of the the judgment of a plea that was before you in
our court of the abovesaid city without our writ according to the
custom of the same city between James Webster and William Hulle
cleric concerning a plea of covenant broken as it is said manifest
error intervened to the grave damage of the same William as from
his complaint we have received, 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 distinctly and openly send
the record and process abovesaid with everything touching them to
us under the seals of you or one of you, and this writ so that we
have them on the morrow of St. John the Baptist wherever we shall
then be in England, so that, the abovesaid record and process
having been inspected, we may make to be done further 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 May 4 in the 29th year of our reign [May 4,
1537]. The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ
follow in these words: The City of Hereford. The lord king’s pie powder court of his city
of Hereford held by reason of the market had in the same city, viz.,
every day at that city in the guildhall of the same city in the city
abovesaid before Thomas Graunger mayor of this city according to
the use and custom in the same city continued, used and approved
from time whereof there is not memory of men on April 24 in the
29th year year of the reign of King Henry the eighth after the
conquest [April 24, 1537], scilt., the 9th hour after noon of the same
April 24. At this court comes James Webster in his proper person and
complains against William Halle cleric in a plea of covenant
broken according to the custom of the city of Hereford continued,
used, and approved from time whereof there in no memory of men,
and he found pledges to prosecute that complaint: viz., Nicholas
Franke and Richard Dale. And he seeks process to be made for
him according to the custom of the abovesaid city etc.. Thereon it
is ordered by the aforementioned mayor to Nicholas Franke
serjeant at mace of the lord king in the abovesaid city and minister
of the abovesaid court that he summon by good summoners the
abovesaid William Hulle cleric that he be at the guildhall
abovesaid before the mayor of the abovesaid city at the lord king’s
next pie powder court to be held by reason of the abovesaid market
here at the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned mayor,
viz., at the 3rd hour after noon of the same April 24 etc., to answer
the aforementioned James Webster concerning the abovesaid plea.
And the same hour is given to the aforementioned James here to be
etc., and the abovesaid James Webster put in his place Roger
Mower against William Hulle cleric concerning a plea of covenant
broken according to the custom of the city of Hereford etc. [IMG
0064] The City of Hereford. The lord king’s pie powder court of the city
of Hereford by reason of the market had in the same city held at the
abovesaid city in the guildhall of the same city before Thomas
Graunger mayor of the city abovesaid according to the and custom
continued, used, and approved in the same city from time whereof
there is no memory of men on the 3rd hour after noon of April 24 in
the 29th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [April 24, 1537]. At this abovesaid court the abovesaid James Webster by Roger
Mower his attorney offered himself against the abovesaid William
Hulle cleric concerning the plea abovesaid etc. And the abovesaid
Nicholas Franke serjeant at mace in the abovesaid city and minister
of the abovesaid court returned and certified the abovesaid precept
directed to him that the abovesaid William Hulle has nothing in the
abovesaid city nor within the jurisdiction of the abovesaid court
whereby he can be summoned etc. Therefore according to the
custom of the abovesaid city it is ordered by the aforementioned
mayor to the aforementioned Nicholas Franke the lord king’s
serjeant at mace in the abovesaid city and minister of the abovesaid
court etc., that they take the abovesaid William Hulle cleric if he
shall be found in the abovesaid city etc., and safely etc., so that he
have his body here, scilt., at the abovesaid guildhall before the
mayor of the abovesaid city at the next lord king’s pie powder
court to be held before the said mayor of the said city, viz., at the
9th hour before noon on April 25 next to come to answer James
Webster concerning the abovesaid plea, and the same day and hour
is given to the aforementioned James Webster here etc. The City of Hereford. The lord king’s pie powder court of his city
of Hereford by reason of the market had in the same city held at the
abovesaid city in the guildhall of the same city before Thomas
Graunger mayor of the abovesaid city according to the use and
custom continued, used and approved in the same city from time
whereof there is no memory of men at the 9th hour of April 25 in
the 29th year of the reign of King Henry the eighth after the
conquest [April 25, 1537]. Ad which court the abovesaid James Webster by Roger Mower his
attorney offered himself against the aforementioned William Hulle
cleric in the abovesaid plea. And the abovesaid Nicholas Franke
the lord king’s serjeant at macae in the abovesaid city and minister
of the abovesaid court returned and certified his precept directed to
him executed in all things, viz., that he took the body of the
abovesaid William Hulle cleric. And he has him ready at the bar:
[IMG 0292] William Hulle cleric was summoned to answer James Webster in a
plea of covenant broken according to the custom of the city
Hereford continued used and approved from time whereof the
memory of men does not run etc. And wherefore the same plaintiff
by Roger Mower his attorney says that in the abovesaid city such a
custom is had and from the whole time abovesaid such custom was
had that all covenants ore tenus made in the city in the same city
without any specialty in writing ought and from the whole time
abovesaid ought and have been accustomed to be pleaded in the
same city without any specialty made in the writing, and the
abovesaid defendant did not hold the covenant with the abovesaid
plaintiff made ore tenus in the abovesaid city, because the
abovesaid defendant on March 6 in the 28th year of the reign of
King Henry the eighth after the conquest [March 6, 1537] here at
the city of Hereford and within the jurisdiction of his court he
agreed and made a covenant with the aforementioned plaintiff ore
tenus to render and pay the aforementioned plaintiff £3 6s8d
sterling at Palm Sunday then next following for 24 woolen cloths
of the tawney medley color bought from the aforementioned
plaintiff, and although the abovesaid defendant often asked
concerning the £3 6s8d by the aforementioned plaintiff by force of
the abovesaid covenant he has still not rendered or paid them to
him but refused to render and pay them to him and still refuses, and
thus the abovesaid defendant totally broke the covenant abovesaid
made to the same plaintiff ore tenus, wherefore the same plaintiff
says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of 100s and
thereof produces suit etc. And the abovesaid defendant in his proper person comes and
defends force and injury when etc., and he says that he did not
make such a covenant with the aforementioned plaintiff in manner
and form as the same plaintiff above against him in the same plea
pleaded and alleged, and of this he puts himself on the countryside.
And the abovesaid plaintiff similarly etc. And thereon it is ordered by the aforementioned mayor to
James Balle, Nicholas Franke, Hugh Hoper, and William Turnour
the lord king’s serjeant at mace in the abovesaid city and ministers
of the abovesaid court etc., that they should make to come here,
scilt., at the guildhall of the abovesaid city before the mayor of the
abovesaid city at the lord king’s next pie powder court had by
reason of the abovesaid market in the same city to be held, viz., at
the 3rd hour after noon on April 25 in the 29th year of the reign of
King Henry the eighth after the conquest, 12 etc., of the abovesaid
city within the jurisdiction of the abovesaid court, and who neither
etc., to recognize because both etc., and the same day and hour is
given similarly to the abovesaid parties here etc. The City of Hereford. The lord king’s pie powder court of his city
of Hereford held by reason of the market had in the same city at the
city abovesaid in the guildhall of the same city before Thomas
Graunger mayor of the abovesaid city according to the use and
custom of the same city continued, used, and approved from time
whereof there is no memory of men at the 3rd hour after noon April
25 in the 29th year of the reign of King Henry the eighth after the
conquest [April 25, 1537]. At this court the aforementioned James Balle, Nicholas Franke,
Hugh Hoper and William Turnour the lord king’s serjeants at mace
in the abovesaid city and ministers of the court of the abovesaid
city returned the precept directed to them executed in all things,
and both the abovesaid James Webster by his abovesaid attorney
and the abovesaid defendant, exacted, appeared. And the
abovesaid jurors, similarly exacted, came. And the abovesaid
James Balle, Nicholas Franke, Hugh Hoper, and William Turnour
the lord king’s serjeants at mace in the abovesaid city and [IMG
0293] and ministers of the abovesaid court now attest that each of
the jurors was attached by pledge of John Doo and Richard Roo, of
which certain jurors etc., 12 etc., viz., William Rusell, Thomas
Stokes, William Matheuwes webber, Richard Davies baker,
Thomas Clement, Richard ap Thomas baker, Henry Dudson, John
ap Hoell currier, Phillip Jenkyns, Mathew Remme, Lewis ap Hoell
tanner, and Roger Churche, chosen, tried, and sworn to tell the
truth of the premisses, say on their oath that the abovesaid
defendant made the abovesaid covenant with the aforementioned
plaintiff in the manner and form etc. And they assess the damages
of the plaintiff by reason etc., beyond the outlays and costs at £3
10s, and for his outlays and costs at 3s. Therefore it is considered
by the court that the abovesaid plaintiff recover against the
aforementioned defendant the abovesaid £3 10s for his damages
and 3s for outlays [and at that point the record stops without
more]
0063,
0064,
0292,
0293