Robert Freman v. Henry Greswell mariner
Kingston upon Hull attorneys: William Thow, Richard Brynkeley
King's Bench error plaintiff's attorney: Richard Heywood
Error in king's bench (Hilary term, 1538) on an action in the court of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire
AALT images for Freman v. Greswell This action of error on a case of trespass in the court of Kingston upon
Hull yields a somewhat stilted local court pleading. The errors alleged
were that no delay was granted in the summoning of the jury and no
process against the jurors was enrolled. The lord king sent to the mayor and sheriff of the town of Kingston upon
Hull 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 sheriff of Kingston upon
Hull, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the
rendering of the judgment of the plea that was before you in the
court of the abovesaid town without our writ according to the
custom of the same town between Robert Freman and Henry
Greswell concerning a certain trespass inflicted on the same Robert
by the aforementioned Henry as it is said manifest error intervened
to the grave damage of the same Henry Greswell as we have
accepted 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 distinctly and openly send the record
and process of the abovesaid plea with everything touching them to
us under your seal, and this writ, so that we have them on the
morrow of St. Martin wherever we then shall be in England, so
that, the abovesaid record and process having been inspected we
may do further thereof for correcting 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 July 4 in the 29th year of
our reign [July 4, 1537]. The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ
follow in these words: Kingston upon Hull. Pleas of the court of the lord king of his town
of Kingston upon Hull had there on February 22 in the 27th year of
the reign of King Henry VIII [February 22, 1536] before Thomas
Dalton mayor and Peter Macus sheriff according to the custom of
the same town used and approved from time whereof there is no
memory of men. Robert Freman merchant complains of Henry Greswell of
Newcastle upon Tyne mariner concerning a plea of trespass.
Pledges to prosecute: William Mathyson and Robert Maymound
merchants. He sought process to be made to him according to the
use and custom of the abovesaid town, to whom it is granted by the
court. Thereon it is ordered to William Rogerson serjeant at mace
of the lord king there that he not omit on account of any liberty
rather that he attach the abovesaid Henry Greswell defendant so
that he be at the next court of the lord king at the guildhall of the
town abovesaid before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff to
answer the aforementioned Robert Freman plaintiff concerning the
abovesaid plea; the same day is given to the aforementioned Robert
there. And the aforementioned Robert appeared in his proper
person and put in his place William Thow against the said
defendant in the abovesaid plea. At which certain court of the lord king then next following held
February 24 in the abovesaid year of the lord king [February 24,
1536] before the aforementioned mayor and sheriffs the
aforementioned William Rogerson minister of the abovesaid court
[blank] and acknowledged, returned [blank] directed to him that
the abovesaid Henry Greswell defendant was attached by pledges
Richard Saulle and John Carr until the feast of Peter abovesaid. Kingston upon Hull. Pleas of the court of the lord king had there
before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the use
and custom of the town abovesaid on February 24 in the abovesaid
year of the lord king [February 24, 1536], the plaintiff appeared by
his abovesaid attorney and the plea appeared by this bill. [IMG
0134] Robert Freman merchant complains of Henry Greswell of
Newcastle upon Tyne mariner concerning a plea of trespass. And
wherefore the same plaintiff by William Thow his attorney here
present in open court complains of this that the same defendant
here within the port and Kingston upon Hull within the liberty and
jurisdiction of this court with force and arms etc., on December 24
in the 27th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [December 24,
1535] broke and entered a ship called “le Mathewe of Newcastle”
and took and carried away and abducted the said goods and
chattels as, viz., 60 bundles of linen to the value of £4 10s found
then and there against the peace of the lord king and to the grave
damage of the same plaintiff and the same defendant inflicted other
enormities and injuries on the same plaintiff at that time, wherefore
the same plaintiff by his said attorney says that he is worse off and
has sustained damages to the value of £6 and thereof by his said
attorney he tenders suit. And the abovesaid defendant by Richard Brynkeley his
attorney appears and defends force and injury, wrong and damages,
and everything whatever he ought to defend, and as to the force
and arms against the peace of the lord king the said defendant by
his said attorney: not guilty. And thereof he puts himself on an
inquisition of the countryside. And as to the taking, abduction, and
taking away of the said 60 bundles of linen specified in the
abovesaid declaration, the said defendant by his said attorney says
that the aforementioned actor ought not to maintain against him his
action, because by his plea he says that so the said defendant
presumed to take or abduct any parcel of the linen abovesaid in the
form abovesaid as in the same declaration is alleged, but only two
bundles of linen as parcel of his portage from parts abroad owed
and accustomed to him himself, which certain portage was used
between mariners from the custom and use approved from time
whereof there was no memory of men, and thus the said defendant
by his said attorney says that the aforementioned plaintiff ought
not to maintain his action against him. And the aforementioned plaintiff appeared by his attorney
abovesaid and says in manner and form as in the declaration and
for the replication says that he ought to maintain his action of this
that the said defendant took and carried away the said 60 bundles
of linen as the said plaintiff in his declaration [IMG 0313] alleged,
and this he seeks to be inquired by the countryside. And the
abovesaid defendant by his said attorney similarly. Therefore,
process thereof having been continued in the state as now until
September 13 in the year of the reign of King Henry VIII then
following [September 13, 1536]. At which day the jury, exacted, appeared, viz., Thomas
Williamson, Adam Richardson, Robert Bessacle, William Norrey,
James Raskall, Richard Foxe, William Draxe, Robert Mandby,
Robert Gourley, Robert Pateson, James Wyrlington, and William
Clark fuller, sworn, which certain jurors, chosen, tried, and sworn,
say on their oath etc., between Robert Freman plaintiff and Henry
Greswell defendant in a plea of trespass as it appears by the bill
beforewritten with the response of the defendant etc., whereof the
abovesaid jurors say that the said defendant is guilty against the
said plaintiff in the said plea of trespass at damages of the said
plaintiff of £4 10s. And because the court is not yet advised to render judgment
thereof, day is given to the parties abovesaid until Wednesday,
viz., September 27 then next following [September 27, 1536]. At which day it was considered by the court that the said plaintiff
recover the said 90s of damages taxed by the jury and outlays and
costs of court according to the custom of the court and the
judgment rendered thereof according etc. And the defendant in
mercy. Afterwards, scilt., on January 23 this same term before the lord king at
Westminster comes the abovesaid Henry Greswell by Richard Heywood
his attorney, and says that in the record and process abovesaid and also
in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it is erred for this,
viz., that according to the law and custom of the realm of the lord king
of England after anyone puts himself on any jury of the
countryside there will be allocated to him one essoin or one default
before this manner jury of the countryside shall be taken, in this
that the jury was taken between the parties concerning the
abovesaid plea without any essoin or default allocated to the
aforementioned defendant. And also it does not appear in the abovesaid record that any
process or any precept was adjudicated against the said jurors to
appear between the abovesaid parties as above appears of record. And the same Henry Greswell seeks the lord king’s writ to warn the
abovesaid Robert Freman to be before the lord king to hear the record
and process abovesaid, and it is granted to him etc. Whereby it is
ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., he should make it to be known
to the aforementioned Robert that he be before the lord king at 15 days
after Easter wherever etc., to hear the abovesaid record and process if
etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Henry
etc. At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid
Henry by his abovesaid attorney, and the sheriff did not send the writ
thereof. Therefore as formerly it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent
etc., he should make it to be known to the aforementioned Robert that he
be before the lord king on the octaves of the Holy Trinity wherever etc.,
to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The
same day is given to the aforementioned Henry etc. At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid
Henry by his abovesaid attorney. And the sheriff returns that by virtue
of the writ directed to him thereof he made it to be known to the
aforementioned Robert to be before the said lord king as it was ordered
to him to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., by John Man,
Richard Den, William Fen, and Thomas Faux prudent etc. Which
certain Robert although thus warned and on the 4th day solemnly
exacted, did not come. Thereon, both the record and process abovesaid
and the abovesaid error assigned above having been seen and inspected
by the court of the lord king here and more fully understood, it is
considered that the abovesaid judgment on account of that error and
others found in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled,
and wholly had for nothing, and that the abovesaid Henry be restored to
everything that he lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment etc.
0133,
0134,
0313