Edmund Hamerton of Crowle, Lincolnshire, yeoman v. Robert Milner of Beverley, Yorkshire, yeoman

     Kingston upon Hull attorneys: William Foxley, George Harwood

     Error plaintiff's king's bench attorney: Robert Dixon

The lord king sent to the mayor and sheriff of his town of Kingston upon Hull 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 and sheriff of his town of Kingston upon Hull, 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 town without our writ according to the custom of the same town between Edmund Hamerton and Robert Milner concerning a certain debt that the same Edmund exacts from the aforementioned Robert as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Robert 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 his part, order you that if judgment has been rendered thereof then send distinctly and openly the abovesaid record and process together with everything touching them to us under your seals, and this writ, so that we have them at Trinity three weeks wherever we shall then be in England, so that, the abovesaid record and process having been inspected, we may make to be done further 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 June 1 of the 5^th year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland and the 40^th of Scotland. [June 1, 1607] Harrison

The record and process of the plea whereof mention is made in the abovesaid writ together with everything touching them follow in these words:

Kingston upon Hull. The court of the Lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., held on February 6 in the 4^th year of the reign of said lord king of England, France, and Ireland and the 40^th of Scotland [February 6, 1607] at his town of Kingston upon Hull in the guildhall of the same town before George Almond mayor of that town and Richard Burges sheriff of the abovesaid town and of the same county according to the custom of that town used and approved from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary.

Suit. At this court comes Edmund Hamerton of Crowle in the county of Lincolnshire yeoman in his proper person and complains against Robert Milner of Beverley in the county of Yorkshire yeoman concerning a plea that he render to him £40 of the good and lawful money of England that he owes him and unjustly detains etc. And he finds pledges to prosecute his complaint abovesaid, scilt., John Doo and Richard Roo. And he seeks process to be made for him thereof and against the aforementioned Robert Milner of and on the abovesaid complaint according to the custom of the abovesaid town, and it is granted to him etc. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from the whole abovesaid time it is ordered to Peter Smeaton one of the serjeants at mace and a minister of the abovesaid court that he summon by good summoners the abovesaid Robert Milner so that he be at the court of the said lord king to be held at the abovesaid town in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from the whole time abovesaid there, scilt., February 9 in the abovesaid 4^th year of the king to answer the aforementioned Edmund Hamerton in the abovesaid complaint. The same day is given to the aforementioned Edmund here etc.

At which certain lord king’s court held here on the said February 9 [February 9, 1607] at the abovesaid town in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from the whole abovesaid time there comes the aforementioned Edmund Hamerton in his proper person and presents himself against the abovesaid Robert Milner concerning the abovesaid plea. And the abovesaid Peter Smeaton serjeant at mace then and there attests that the abovesaid Robert Milner had nothing within the abovesaid town or the liberty of the same whereby he could be summoned to answer at this day. Thereon then and there it was ordered further to the aforementioned Peter Smeaton serjeant at mace and minister of the abovesaid court according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from the whole abovesaid time that he take the abovesaid Robert Milner so that he have his body at the said lord king’s court to be held at the town abovesaid in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned mayor and the abovesaid sheriff according to the custom of the abovesaid town on February 10 in the abovesaid year to answer the aforementioned Edmund Hamerton concerning the abovesaid plea. The same day also is given to the same Edmund here etc.

At which certain court of the said lord king held at the abovesaid town in the abovesaid guildhall abovesaid on the said February 10 in the abovesaid year [February 10, 1607] before the mayor and the sheriff abovesaid according to the custom of the abovesaid town come both the abovesaid Edmund Hamerton and the abovesaid Robert Milner in their proper persons. And the abovesaid Peter Smeaton serjeant at mace now here returns the abovesaid precept directed to him in the abovesaid form served and executed in everything, viz., that he by virtue of the abovesaid precept took the abovesaid Robert Mylner by his body and has his body here at this day ready as by the abovesaid precept it was ordered to him. And thereon come here in court the abovesaid George Johnson and Christofer Maxwell jr., and according to the custom of the abovesaid town used and approved from all the abovesaid time there and mainperned for the abovesaid Robert Mylner that he would stand to right in the same court here on the complaint abovesaid and make a default on no day given him by the court here thereof nor withdraw or absent himself from the execution of judgment in the abovesaid complaint if it be rendered against him, under the penalty of incurring the same execution to be made and exacted from the bodies or from their goods and chattels if it happen that the abovesaid Robert Milner at any day given to him make default or absent himself from receiving and awaiting execution of judgment if it should be rendered against him.

And the abovesaid Edmund Hamerton then and there puts in his place William Foxley his attorney against the abovesaid Robert Milner concerning the abovesaid plea.

And the same Robert Milner puts in his place George Harwood his attorney against the aforementioned Edmund Hamerton concerning the abovesaid plea. [IMG 0923]

And thereon the aforementioned Edmund Hamerton by narrating against the aforementioned Robert Milner of and on the abovesaid complaint by his attorney abovesaid says that, whereas the abovesaid Robert on January 19 in the 39^th year of the reign of the Elizabeth late queen of England [January 19, 1597] at Kingston upon Hull within the fee and jurisdiction of this court by his certain obligatory writing sealed by his seal and shown to the court here, the date of which is the same day and year, granted that he was bound and firmly obligated to the aforementioned Edmund in the abovesaid £50 to be paid to the same Edmund or to his certain attorney, his heirs, executors or administrators at any time afterwards when thereof he should be asked, nevertheless the abovesaid Robert although often asked has not yet rendered the abovesaid £50 to the aforementioned Edmund but has refused to this time to render them to him and still refuses, wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of £10, and thereof produces suit etc.

And the abovesaid Robert Milner by his abovesaid attorney comes and defends force and injury when etc., and he seeks license thereof to emparl here until the said lord king’s court to be held at the abovesaid town in the said guildhall before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the custom of the town abovesaid used from the whole abovesaid time on Thursday, scilt., March 5 in the abovesaid year etc. [March 5, 1607] And he has it etc. [IMG 1736] The same day is given to the aforementioned Edmund Hamerton here etc.

At which certain court of the said lord king held on the said March 5 in the 4^th year abovesaid [March 5, 1607] at the abovesaid town in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from the whole abovesaid time come both the abovesaid Edmund Hamerton and the abovesaid Robert Milner by his abovesaid attorney. And thereon the same Edmund by his abovesaid attorney seeks that the abovesaid Robert Milner at his narration answer to him etc. Thereon the abovesaid Robert Milner by his abovesaid attorney seeks oyer of the abovesaid obligatory writing and it is read to him in these words:

Know all by the presents that I Robert Milner of Beverley in the county of Yorkshire yeoman am bound and firmly obligated to Edmund Hamerton of Crowle in the county of Lincolnshire yeoman in £50 of the good and lawful money of England to be paid to the same Edmund Hamerton or his certain attorney, his executors or administrators, to which certain payment well and faithfully to be made I oblige myself, my heirs, executors, and administrators firmly by the presents, sealed by my seal, dated January 19 in the 39^th year of the reign of our Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc.

He seeks also oyer of the condition of the same writing, and it is read to him in these words [in English]:

The condicion of this obligacion is such that wheras the above bounden Roberte Milner standeth bounde iointlye & serveralie with the above named Edmunde Hamerton by three severall obligacions or bills obligatorie unto one John Chapman of Kingston upon Hull in the said countie of Kingston merchante for the true payment of twentye & seaven pounds of lawful english money to be paide unto him the said John Chapman at certaine daies by past as in and by the said three severall obligacions or bills obligatorie more at large appeareth and for the payment fulle satisfaction & discharge of which said some of twenty seaven pounds & of everie parte and parcelle thereof the said Edmund Hamerton before thensealinge & delivery of these presentes hath welle and trulye delivered unto him the said Roberte Milner certaine houshould stuffe cattle and money which doeth amounte and come to the valew of the said twenty seaven pounds to be paide over by him the said Robert Milner or his assignes unto the said John Chapman his heires and executors administrators or assignes for the full satisfaction & discharge of the said twenty seaven pounds in the said severall obligacions mencioned if therefore the saide Robert Milner his executors administrators or assignes or any of them shalle faithfully & trulie paie or cause to be paide unto the said John Chapman his executors administrators or assignes or any of them the said some of twenty seaven pounds and alsoe save keepe harmeles unpreiudissed & undempnified the said Edmonde Hamerton his executors & administrators & everie of them of & frome the sayd xx seaven poundes and from alle other losses suites indempnities & incumbrances whatsoever which by any waies or meanes may arise come & growe by reason of the said three severall obligacions or either or any of them and alsoe yf the saide Robert Milner his executors or assignes or any of them shall one thisside the feaste of St. Michael Tharckangelle next ensuinge the date hereof deliver or cause to be delivered unto the saide Edmonde Hamerton his executors administrators or assignes or some of them the said three obligacions or els such an acquittance under the hand & seale of the said John Chapman for his further securitie & discharge of the said twenty seaven poundes as shalbe in the lawe thought convenient accordinge to the effect & true meaning of theis presentes, that then this present obligacion to be voide and of none effecte or els it to be stande remayne & bee in fulle force power strength and vertue. [IMG 1737]

Which having been read and heard, the same Robert says that the abovesaid Edmund ought not have or maintain his action thereof against him, because he says that he well paid and satisfied the aforementioned John Chapman named in the same condition the abovesaid sum of £27 according to the tenor of the abovesaid condition, scilt., on May 1 in the 1^st year of the reign of the said our Lord James king etc., scilt., of England, France, and Ireland and the 36^th of Scotland at Kingston upon Hull abovesaid and well and faithfully kept harmless the abovesaid Edmund of and from the abovesaid sum of £27 and all suits and whatsoever indemnities concerning the abovesaid three separate obligations specified in the abovesaid condition, and also that he the aforementioned Robert delivered to the aforementioned Edmund the abovesaid three separate obligations specified in the said condition before the said feast of St. Michael the Archangel then next following after the date of the said obligation. And this he is ready to verify, wherefore he seeks judgment etc., wherefore etc.

And the abovesaid Edmund says that he by anything alleged above [ought] not to be precluded from having his abovesaid action etc., because by protesting that the abovesaid Robert did not keep him the abovesaid Edmund harmless of and from the abovesaid sum of £27 and from all suits and indemnities whatsoever concerning the abovesaid 3 separate obligations specified in the abovesaid condition nor did he the abovesaid Robert deliver to the aforementioned Edmund the abovesaid 3 separate obligations before the feast of St. Michael the Archangel then next following after the date of the said obligation, for a plea says that the abovesaid Robert did not well pay and satisfy the aforementioned John Chapman the abovesaid sum of £27 in the manner and form as he above by pleading alleged, and he seeks that this be inquired by the countryside etc. And the abovesaid Robert similarly etc. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid town used there from the whole time abovesaid, it is ordered to the abovesaid Peter Smeaton serjeant at mace and minister of the abovesaid court that he make to come here at the court of the said lord king to be held in the abovesaid town in the guildhall of the same town before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff [IMG 0924] according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from the whole abovesaid time, scilt., on March 11 in the abovesaid 4^th year of the abovesaid king 12 prudent and lawful men of the abovesaid town by whom etc., and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. The same day is given to the parties abovesaid here etc.

At which certain court of the said lord king held on the said March 11 [March 11, 1607] at the abovesaid town in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff abovesaid according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from the whole abovesaid time came both the abovesaid Edmund Hamerton and the abovesaid Robert Milner by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Peter Smeaton serjeant at mace returned the abovesaid precept directed to him in the abovesaid form served and executed in everything of venire facias etc., together with the panel of names of jurors, scilt., Robert Fryer, James Bachus, Mathewe Bucke, Thomas Johnson, Roland Savidge, Thomas Barton, James Bonneck, Gregory Haye, Richard Wilson, John Wicome, Ralph Rosse, and Henry Bradley, of whom none etc. Whereby the jury between the abovesaid parties is put in respite here until the said lord king’s court of the abovesaid town held in the abovesaid guildhall on March 18 in the abovesaid year [March 18, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from the whole time abovesaid for default of jurors, because none then there came etc. And it was ordered to the abovesaid Peter Smeaton serjeant at mace that he have then the bodies of the jurors etc. The same day is given to the abovesaid parties here etc.

At which certain said lord king’s court held at the abovesaid town in the abovesaid guildhall on March 18 in the abovesaid year [March 18, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the custom of the abovesaid town came the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Peter Smeaton serjeant at mace returned the abovesaid precept directed to him in the abovesaid form of habeas corpus etc., served and executed in everything, scilt., that each juror abovesaid by him is separately mainperned by pledges: John Doo and Richard Roo. And because none of them etc., therefore the jury between the abovesaid parties is put further in respite here until the said lord king’s court held at the abovesaid town in the abovesaid guildhall on April 1 in the 5^th year of the abovesaid King James before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from the whole abovesaid time for default of jurors etc., because none etc. And it was ordered further to the aforementioned Peter Smeaton serjeant at mace and minister of the abovesaid court that he then distrain the abovesaid jurors etc. The same day is given also to the abovesaid parties here etc.

At which certain court of the said lord king held at the abovesaid town in the said guildhall on April 1 in the 5^th year of the abovesaid king [April 1, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor and sheriff according to the custom of the abovesaid town used from all the time abovesaid came both the abovesaid Edmund Hamerton and the abovesaid Robert Milner by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Peter Smeaton serjeant at mace returned the precept directed to him in the abovesaid form served and executed in everything. And the jury abovesaid put in respite similarly exacted appeared, who, chosen, tried and sworn to tell the truth concerning the premisses, say on their oath that the abovesaid Robert Milner did not pay the aforementioned John Chapman the abovesaid sum of £27 on May 1 in the 1^st year of the reign of the said our Lord James king as the same Robert Milner within by pleading alleged, and they assess the damages of the same Edmund Hamerton by occasion of the detention of that debt withinwritten beyond his outlays and costs put out by him on his suit in this part at 1d, and for those outlays and costs at 1d. Therefore it is considered that the abovesaid Edmund Hamerton recover against the aforementioned Robert Milner his abovesaid debt and his damages abovesaid assessed by the abovesaid jury in the abovesaid form at 1d found above by the inquisition abovesaid as well as 17s2d for his abovesaid outlays and costs adjudicated by the court of the said lord king here by way of increment, which certain damages in all amount to 17s2d, and the abovesaid Robert Milner in mercy etc.

Afterwards, scilt., on Friday next after the quindene of Martinmas this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Robert Milner by Robert Dixon his attorney and says that in the record and process abovesaid as well as in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred in this, viz.,

that the jurors of the abovesaid jury between the abovesaid parties assessed the damages of the abovesaid Edmund Hamerton by occasion of the detention of his abovesaid debt beyond his outlays and costs put out by him on his suit in that part at 1d and for those outlays and costs at 1d, the judgment nevertheless for the same Edmund against the aforementioned Robert Milner was rendered that the abovesaid Edmund Hamerton recover against the aforementioned Robert Milner his debt abovesaid and his abovesaid damages assessed in the abovesaid form at 1d only as by the abovesaid record of the abovesaid lord king’s court here certified above as set out before fully appears, and thus the abovesaid judgment rendered against the aforementioned Robert Milner in the form abovesaid as set out before is erroneous and void in law.

And the same Robert Milner seeks the lord king’s writ to warn the aforementioned Edmund 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., from his bailiwick he make known to the aforementioned Edmund 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 Robert etc.

[Similar orders:

from the Octaves of St. Hilary to the quindene of Easter

From the quindene of Easter to the morrow of Holy Trinity

From the morrow of Holy Trinity to Michaelmas month [IMG 1738]

From Michaelmas month to the Octaves of St. Hilary

From the Octaves of St. Hilary to the quindene of Easter

From the quindene of Easter to morrow of Holy Trinity

From the morrow of Holy Trinity to Michaelmas month

From Michaelmas month to the Octaves of St. Hilary

From the Octaves of St. Hilary to the quindene of Easter

From the quindene of Easter to the morrow of Holy Trinity

From the morrow of Holy Trinity to the Octaves of Michaelmas

From the Octaves of Michaelmas to the Octaves of St. Hilary

From the Octaves of St. Hilary to the quindene of Easter

From the quindene of Easter to the morrow of Holy Trinity

From the morrow of Holy Trinity to the Octaves of Michaelmas

From the Octaves of Michaelmas to the Octaves of St. Hilary

From the Octaves of St. Hilary to the quindene of Easter

From the quindene of Easter to the morrow of Holy Trinity

From the morrow of Holy Trinity to the Octaves of Michaelmas

From the Octaves of Michaelmas to the Octaves of St. Hilary

From the Octaves of St. Hilary to the quindene of Easter

From the quindene of Easter to the morrow of Holy Trinity]

At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Robert by his abovesaid attorney, and the sheriff did not send the writ thereof. And the abovesaid Edmund on the 4^th day of the plea solemnly exacted similarly came by William Gibbons his attorney. Thereon the abovesaid Robert as before says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred by alleging the abovesaid errors by him alleged in the abovesaid form. And he seeks that the abovesaid judgment on account of those errors and others being in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing, and that he be restored to everything that he lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment and that the abovesaid Edmund rejoin to the abovesaid errors, and that the court of the lord king here proceed to the examination both of the abovesaid record and process and of the abovesaid matters assigned above for errors.

         And the abovesaid Edmund says that neither in the record and process abovesaid nor in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment in anything is it erred. And he seeks similarly that the court of the lord king here proceed to the examination both of the record and process abovesaid and of the matters abovesaid assigned for errors, and that the abovesaid judgment be affirmed in everything.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. Thereon, both the abovesaid record and process and the judgment rendered on the same and the abovesaid causes and matters above assigned for errors having been seen and more fully understood by the court of the lord king here, because it seems to the court of the lord king here that neither in the record and process abovesaid nor in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment in anything is it vicious or defective, it is considered that the abovesaid judgment be affirmed in everything and stand in all its strength and vigor, the said matters above assigned for errors in anything notwithstanding. And further by the court of the lord king here it is considered that the abovesaid Edmund recover against the aforementioned Robert £4 adjudicated to the same Edmund by the court of the lord king here according to the form of the statute in this manner case published and provided for his outlays, costs, and damages that he sustained by occasion of the delay of execution abovesaid by pretext of the prosecution of the said lord king’s abovesaid writ of error and the same Edmund have execution against the aforementioned Robert etc.

[Margination:]

Let the judgment be affirmed. For outlays in defending the plea in the form of the statute by occasion of delay in the execution of judgment at £4