Norwich attorneys: Lawrence Woode, Richard Tolye
        [for another case with Tolye as attorney together with Thomas Elsye: see

     Error plaintiff's king's bench attorney: Francis Sandbache

The Lord queen sent to the sheriffs of Norwich his writ close in these words:

Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland defender of the faith etc., to the sheriffs of Norwich, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the rendering of 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 John Branthut of Norwich mercer and George Themylthorpe of Foulsham in the county of Norfolk gentleman concerning a debt of 1,000 marks that the same John exacts from the aforementioned George as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same George 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 record and process of the abovesaid plea with everything touching them to us under your seals, and this writ, so that we have them at the quindene of Holy Trinity wherever then we shall be in England so that, the record and process abovesaid having been inspected, we may make to be done further thereof what of right and according to the law and custom of our realm of England should be done. Tested me myself at Westminster May 3 in the 13^th year of our reign. [May 3, 1571]

The pleas held in the court of our Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., before Thomas Gleane and Robert Gostling sheriffs of the city of Norwich in the guildhall of the abovesaid city situated in the parish of St. Peter in the ward of Mancrofte according to the customs of the same city used and approved from time whereof there is no memory of men and the liberties, privileges, and franchises granted to the citizens of the said city by divers late kings of England and confirmed by the now lady queen on Saturday the last day of September in the 12^th year of reign of the same lady queen [September 30, 1570].

At this court held here before the aforementioned sheriff comes John Branthutt of Norwich mercer and he complains against George Themylthorpe of Foulsham in the county of Norwich gentleman concerning a plea that he render to him 1,000 marks, and he finds pledges to prosecute his abovesaid plea, viz., John Doo and Richard Roo. And thereon the abovesaid John Branthutt then and there by Lawrence Woode his attorney sought process thereof to be made for him against the aforementioned George Themylthorpe according to the custom of the abovesaid city. Thereon at the petition of the attorney of the abovesaid John Branthutt then and there by the aforementioned sheriffs it was ordered to Roger Levold one of the serjeants at mace of the aforementioned sheriffs and minster of the abovesaid court that he should summon by good summoners the abovesaid George Themylthorpe so that he be here before the aforementioned sheriffs on Wednesday October 4 then next following [October 4, 1570] to answer the aforementioned John Branthutt concerning the abovesaid plea.

At which certain day here before the aforementioned sheriffs at the lady queen’s court of the abovesaid city held in the abovesaid guildhall etc., comes the abovesaid John Branthutt by his abovesaid attorney and offered himself against the aforementioned George Themylthorpe concerning the abovesaid plea. And he did not come. And the aforementioned serjeant etc., now here [IMG 1004] returned and certified to the abovesaid court that the abovesaid George Themylthorpe has nothing within the liberties of the abovesaid city whereby he can be summoned nor was he found in the same. And thereon according to the custom of the abovesaid city then and there in the same court it was ordered by the aforementioned sheriff to the same serjeant etc., that he take and arrest the abovesaid George Themylthorpe if he should be found within the liberties of the abovesaid city and guard him safely so that he have his body at the next court to be held before the aforementioned sheriffs on Saturday October 7 then next following [October 7, 1570] to answer the aforementioned John Branthutt concerning the abovesaid plea. And the same day is given to the aforementioned John here etc.

At [IMG 1978] which certain day here come both the aforementioned plaintiff by his abovesaid attorney and the abovesaid defendant in his proper person. And the abovesaid serjeant at mace returned and certified to the abovesaid court that he took the aforementioned George Themylthorpe, whose certain body he has here in court ready to respond to the aforementioned John Branthutt concerning the abovesaid plea as it was ordered to him by the aforementioned sheriffs above. And thereon the abovesaid George Themylthorpe found for the aforementioned sheriffs sufficient mainpernors and pledges to stand to right in the abovesaid plea, viz., Edmund Overton and John Roo, citizens of the abovesaid city who before the aforementioned sheriffs became mainpernors and pledges for the abovesaid George Themylthorpe and that the same George Themylthorpe will stand to right in the abovesaid court here in the abovesaid plea from court to court and at each day of the plea abovesaid until that plea is determined and judgment thereof rendered according to the custom of the abovesaid city used and approved in the same court from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary, which certain custom is such: that the defendant in each complaint affirmed in the said lady queen’s court of the abovesaid city taken by process adjudicated on each complaint against this manner defendant and in the same court personally appearing in that complaint, before he withdraw from the same court ought to find sufficient mainpernors and pledges to stand to right in the same court in that plea, viz., that he the same defendant will appear from court to court at whatsoever court of the lady queen of the abovesaid city to be held in the abovesaid guildhall before the sheriffs of the same city until the same plea be determined and judgment thereof be rendered, and that he will stand to the judgment to be rendered in that plea and that he submit and render himself in the execution of the same judgment if it happen that the judgment in that plea is rendered against this manner defendant, so that if this manner defendant not render himself to the execution of the judgment but rather absent, withdraw, or eloign himself then this manner mainpernor and pledge ought to undergo the execution of this manner judgment in similar manner as he the same defendant ought to undergo if he would not have absented and eloigned himself from the same court. Thereon the same George Themylthorpe by his abovesaid mainprise according to the custom of the abovesaid city on the same Saturday, viz., October 7 in the abovesaid 12^th year of the reign of the abovesaid lady queen withdrew by the abovesaid mainprise etc., until the next court of the said lady queen to be held on Wednesday October 11 in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned sheriff then next to come etc. And thereon here day is given both to the aforementioned John and to the abovesaid George in the abovesaid plea by prayer of the parties etc.

At which certain October 11 [October 11, 1570] then and there in the court of the lady queen held in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned sheriffs came both the aforementioned John Branthutt by his abovesaid attorney and the abovesaid George in his proper person.

And thereon [IMG 1979] the abovesaid George put in his place Richard Tolye, sr., his attorney against the aforementioned John concerning the abovesaid plea.

Pleas held in the court of the Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., before Thomas Glean and Robert Gostling sheriffs of the city of Norwich in the guildhall of the abovesaid city situated in the parish of St. Pater in the ward of Mancrofte according to the use and customs of the abovesaid city used and approved from time whereof there is not memory of men and the liberties, privileges, and franchises granted to the citizens of the said city by divers late kings of England and confirmed by the now lady queen, on the abovesaid Wednesday October 11 in the 12^th year of the reign of the same lady queen [October 11, 1570].

George Themylthorpe of Foulsham in the county of Norfolk gentleman was summoned to answer John Branthutt of Norwich mercer concerning a plea that he render to him 1,000 marks which he owes him and unjustly detains etc. And whereof the same plaintiff by Lawrence Woode his abovesaid attorney says that, whereas the abovesaid defendant on January 22 in the 2^nd year of the reign of the Lady Elizabeth now queen [January 22, 1560] here at [IMG 1005] Norwich in the parish of St. Peter in the ward of Mancrofte and within the jurisdiction of this court granted that he is bound to a certain Owen Cleydon of London gentleman now deceased and the aforementioned now plaintiff in the abovesaid 1,000 marks to be paid to the same Owen Cleydon in his life and to the aforementioned plaintiff or one of them or their executors or their attorneys at the feast of Easter then next following, nevertheless the abovesaid defendant although often asked has still not rendered the abovesaid 1,000 marks to the aforementioned plaintiff but has refused to this time to render them to him and still refuses, wherefore the same plaintiff says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of £100, and thereof he produces suit etc. And he proffers here in the abovesaid court the abovesaid writing that attests the abovesaid debt in the abovesaid form, the date of which is the same day and year abovesaid etc. And the abovesaid defendant by Richard Toly, sr., his abovesaid attorney comes and defends force and injury when etc. And he seeks oyer of the abovesaid writing obligatory and it is read to him etc. He also seeks oyer of the indorsement of the same, and it is read to him in these words, viz., [in English:]

The condicion of this obligacion is suche that if the withinbounden Bartrand Themylthorpe hys heyers executors administrators & assignes shalle welle & trewly holde kepe performe & fullfyll alle & singuler covenauntes grauntes paymentes agrementes & articles which on the parte and behalf of the sayd Bartrand Themylthorpe hys heyres executors administrators or assygnes are to be holden kepte performed and fulfilled comprysed expressed & especifyed in a certeyn indenture bearing date the daye of the date within wrytten made betwine the sayd Bartrand on the one partye & the within namyd Owine Cleydon & John Branthutt on the other partie that then this obligacion to be voyde & of none effecte or ells to stande and remayne in full force & vertue.

Which having been read and heard, the same defendant seeks license thereof to emparl here until the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Saturday October 14 then next following before the aforementioned sheriffs etc., and he has etc. And the same day is given to the aforementioned plaintiff etc.

At which certain day came here before the aforementioned sheriff both the abovesaid plaintiffs and the abovesaid defendants by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid defendant further seeks license thereof to emparl here until the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Saturday October 21 then next following before the aforementioned sheriffs etc., and he has etc. And the same day is given to the aforementioned plaintiff here etc.

At which day came both the abovesaid plaintiff and the abovesaid defendant by their abovesaid attorneys. And thereon the abovesaid defendant by his abovesaid attorney then and there in the abovesaid court proffered and delivered to the abovesaid court a certain writ of privilege emanating out of the exchequer of the said lady queen at Westminster directed to the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of the city of Norwich and each of them to have the body of the abovesaid George together with the day and cause of the taking and detention of the same George before the barons of the exchequer of the said lady queen at a certain day and place specified in the same writ, the tenor of which writ follows in these [IMG 1006] words:

Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of the city of Norwich and each of you, greetings. We order you to have before the barons of our exchequer at Westminster on October 13 in the 12^th year of our reign [October 13, 1570] the body of George Themylthorpe gentleman sub-collector of John, the bishop of Norwich collector of a third of the payment of the subsidy granted to us by the clergy in the 8^th year of our reign in the diocese of Norwich detained under the custody of your aforementioned sheriffs in our prison as it is said by whatsoever name or addition of a name the same George is known, together with the day and cause of the taking and detention of the same George in the abovesaid prison. By the barons. Fanshawe.

Which certain writ then and there at the petition of the petition of the attorney of the said defendant was allocated by the same court etc.

And afterwards, scilt, at the court of the said lady queen held in the abovesaid guildhall on December 6 in the 13^th year of the reign of the said lady queen etc., [December 6, 1570] comes the abovesaid plaintiff by his abovesaid attorney and proffers and delivers to the abovesaid court a certain writ to proceed emanating out of the abovesaid exchequer directed to the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of the city of Norwich and each of them that they proceed in the abovesaid plea against [IMG 1980] the aforementioned defendant according to the custom of the abovesaid city, the tenor of which certain writ follows in these words:

Elizabeth by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of the city of Norwich and each of you, greetings. Although lately by our writ under the seal of our exchequer we ordered that you have the body of George Themylthorpe gentleman sub-collector of John, bishop of Norwich collector of the third of the payment of the subsidy granted to us by the clergy in the 8^th year of our reign in the diocese of Norwich detained in our prison under the custody of your aforementioned sheriffs as it is said by whatsoever name or addition of a name the same George is known together with the day and cause of taking and detention in the abovesaid prison before the barons of our exchequer at Westminster on the morrow of St. Martin to render to us an account for the abovesaid bishop of the said third payment of the subsidy abovesaid in the abovesaid diocese, whereof still he has not appeared and further to receive in the premisses what our court then there should direct to be ordained as in the same writ more fully it is contained, nevertheless, for some certain causes now moving our aforementioned barons of the exchequer we order you and each of you that you proceed with effect against the aforementioned George Themylthorpe by whatsoever name he is known in whatsoever plea conceived by John Branthutt of the abovesaid city mercer before you or any of you according to the custom of our city abovesaid city, our said prior writ in anything notwithstanding. Tested Edward Saunders knight at Westminster November 28 in the 13^th year of our reign [November 28, 1570]. By Baron Fanshawe.

Which certain writ then and there at the petition of the attorney of the said plaintiff was allocated by the abovesaid court etc. Thereon day is given to the abovesaid parties by prayer of the parties here etc., until the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Saturday December 9 then next following before the aforementioned sheriffs etc.

At which day here before the aforementioned sheriffs came both the aforementioned plaintiff and the abovesaid defendant by their abovesaid attorneys. And thereon the abovesaid defendant by his abovesaid attorney then and there in the abovesaid court proffered and delivered to the abovesaid court a said lady queen’s other writ of privilege emanating from her Common Bench directed to the aforementioned mayor, aldermen, and the sheriffs of Norwich and each of them to have the body of the abovesaid George together with the day and cause of the taking and unjust detention of the same before the justices of the said lady queen returnable at a certain day and place specified in the same writ, the tenor of which certain writ follows in these words:

Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of Norwich and each of them, greetings. [IMG 1981] It has been shown to us on the part of George Themylthorpe gentleman otherwise called George Themylthorpe gentleman of Foulsham that, whereas he and every our liege in coming to our court of the bench to prosecute or defend some plea or writ there or to stay there or from thence to return to his own ought to be and has been accustomed to be under our protection according to the liberties and privileges of our court of the abovesaid bench used and approved from time whereof there is no memory, nevertheless certain malevolent scheming people procured to be arrested by your ministers and detained in our prison under your custody the same George as he was coming to speak with his counsel and attorney for having their advisement in a certain plea of debt on a demand of 100s by him prosecuted against a certain Christofer Myghell of East Ruston in the county of Norfolk husbandman in the same our court and whereof our writ for taking the same Christofer was lately directed to our sheriffs of London returnable before our justices at Westminster on the quindene of St. Martin last past, less justly to the no small damage and detriment of the same George and against the liberties and privileges abovesaid, wherefore he supplicated us to supply a remedy for him; we, wanting to happen to the same George in this part what is just and consonant to reason and the liberties and privileges abovesaid inviolably to be observed, order you and each of you that, if the same George in our prison is detained in our prison under your custody or that of any of you, then you or one of you have the same George by whatsoever name he is known together with the day and cause of the taking and detention of the same before our justices at Westminster at Saturday [IMG 1007] next after the Octaves of St. Hilary next to come so that the same justices, the abovesaid cause having been seen, can do in this part what of right and according to the law and custom of our realm of England and the liberties and privileges abovesaid should be done, and have there this writ. Tested J. Dyer at Westminster November 27 in the 13^th year of our reign [November 27, 1570]. Whetley.

Which certain writ then and there at the petition of the attorney of the said defendant was allocated by the same court etc.

And afterwards, scilt., February 17 then next following [February 17, 1571] the abovesaid plaintiff by his abovesaid attorney comes in the abovesaid court and proffered and delivered to the same court a certain writ of the said lady queen to proceed emanating from her Common Bench abovesaid directed to the aforementioned mayor, aldermen, and the sheriffs of Norwich and each of them that they proceed against the abovesaid defendant in the abovesaid plea according to the customs of the abovesaid city, the tenor of which certain writ follows in these words:

Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of Norwich and each of them, greetings. Whereas recently it was shown to us on the part of George Themylthorpe gentleman otherwise called George Themylthorpe gentleman of Foulsham that, whereas he and every our liege in coming to our court of the Bench to prosecute or defend any plea or writ there, to stay there, and thence to return to their own ought to be and have been accustomed to be under our protection according to the liberties and privileges of the same court of the Bench used and approved in the same from time whereof there is not memory, nevertheless certain malevolent schemers procured the same George to be arrested by your ministers and in our prison under your custody to be detained as he was coming to talk with his counsel and attorneys for having their advisement in a certain plea of debt on a demand of 100s prosecuted by him against a certain Christofer Myghell of East Ruston in the county of Norfolk husbandman in our same court and whereof our writ for taking the same Christofer is directed to the our sheriffs of London and returnable before our justices at Westminster at the quindene of St. Martin last past less justly to the no small damage and detriment of the same George and against the liberties and privileges abovesaid [IMG 1008] whereby we order you that, if the same George is detained in our prison under the custody of you or one of you, you have the same George by whatsoever name he is known together with the day and cause of the taking and unjust detention of the same before our justices at Westminster on Saturday next after the Octaves of St. Hilary last past so that the same justices, the cause having been seen, can do in this part what of right and according to the law and customs of our realm of England should be done. And because to our justices abovesaid from certain causes specially moving them it sufficiently seems that the abovesaid George not at all can or ought to enjoy the liberties and privileges abovesaid at present, we order you that in all and singular pleas and complaints in our court before you or any of you moved and depending against him you and each of you should proceed with effect according to the law and customs of our realm of England and of the abovesaid city as should be just, our writ of privilege lately directed to you in anything notwithstanding. Tested J. Dyer at Westminster January 30 in the 13^th year of our reign [January 30, 1571]. Whetley.

Which certain writ then and there at the petition of the attorney of the said plaintiff was allocated by the abovesaid court etc.

And afterwards, scilt., on that same Saturday, viz., February 17 abovesaid, the abovesaid defendant by his abovesaid attorney then and there in the same court proffered and delivered to the same court a certain other writ of the said lady queen emanating from her Bench directed to the aforementioned mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of Norwich and each of them to have the body of the said George before the said lady queen [IMG 1982] at a certain day and place specified in the same writ, the tenor of which certain writ follows in these words:

Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of Norwich and each of them, greetings. We order you that you have the body of George Themylthorpe gentleman detained in our prison under your custody as it is said under safe and secure conduct together with the day and cause of his taking and detention by whatsoever name the same George is known in the same court before us at Westminster on Friday next after the quindene of Easter to answer John Clytham gentleman concerning a plea of debt so that we can proceed further in this part as we shall see it to be of right to be proceeded, and have there this writ. Tested R. Catlyn at Westminster January 30 in the 13^th year of our reign [January 30, 1571]. Rooper.

Which certain writ then and there at the petition of the attorney of the said defendant was allocated by the same court etc. But because the court abovesaid wanted to be more fully advised on the premisses on the receipt of the abovesaid writ at the special petition of the attorney of the aforementioned plaintiff day further is given both to the aforementioned plaintiff and to the abovesaid defendant in the abovesaid plea until the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Wednesday February 21 then next following [February 21, 1571] before the aforementioned sheriff etc.

At which certain February 21 [February 21, 1571] came here before the aforementioned sheriffs both the aforementioned plaintiff and the abovesaid defendant by their abovesaid attorneys. Thereon etc., at the special petition of the attorney of the said plaintiff further day is given both to the aforementioned plaintiff and to the abovesaid defendant in the abovesaid plea until the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Saturday March 3 then next following [March 3, 1571] before the aforementioned sheriffs etc.

[Similar adjournments then

from March 3 to Wednesday March 7, 1571

from March 7 to [IMG 1983] Saturday March 10, 1571

from March 10 to Wednesday March 14, 1571

from March 14 to Saturday March 17, 1571]

At which certain March 17 [IMG 1009] here before the aforementioned sheriffs came both the abovesaid plaintiff and the abovesaid defendant by their abovesaid attorneys.

Pleas held in the court of the Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., before Thomas Gleane and Robert Gostling sheriffs of the city of Norwich in the guildhall of the abovesaid city situated in the parish of St. Peter in the ward of Mancrofte according to the customs of the same city used and approved from time whereof there is not memory of men and the liberties, privileges, and franchises granted to the citizens of the said city by divers late kings of England and confirmed by the now lady queen, on Saturday March 17 in the abovesaid 13^th year of the reign of the same lady queen [March 17, 1571].

George Themylthorpe of Foulsham in the county of Norfolk gentleman was summoned to answer John Branthutt of Norwich mercer concerning a plea that he render to him 1,000 marks that he owes him and unjustly detains etc. And wherefore the same plaintiff by Lawrence Woode his attorney says that, whereas the abovesaid defendant on January 22 in the 2^nd year of the reign of the Lady Elizabeth now queen [January 22, 1560] here at Norwich in the parish of St. Peter in the ward of Mancrofte and within the jurisdiction of this court granted that he was bound to a certain Owen Cleydon of London gentleman now deceased and to the aforementioned now plaintiff in the abovesaid 1,000 marks to be paid to the same Owen Cleydon in his life and to the aforementioned plaintiff or one of them, their executors or attorneys at the feast of Eater then next following, nevertheless the abovesaid defendant although often required has not yet rendered the abovesaid 1,000 marks to the aforementioned plaintiff but to this time has refused to render them to him and still refuses, wherefore the same plaintiff says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of £100. And thereof he produces suit etc. And he proffers here in the abovesaid court the abovesaid writing that attests the abovesaid debt in the abovesaid form, the date of which is the day and year abovesaid.

And the abovesaid defendant by Richard Tolye, sr., his abovesaid attorney comes and defends force and injury when etc. And he says that he ought not to be burdened of the abovesaid debt by virtue of the abovesaid obligatory writing, because he says that that writing is not his deed. And of this he puts himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid plaintiff similarly etc.

Thereon it is ordered to Roger Levold one of the serjeants at mace of the aforementioned sheriffs and minister of the abovesaid court at the petition of the said plaintiff that he within the liberties of the abovesaid city summon and make to come according to the custom of the abovesaid city 12 prudent and lawful men of the same city, each of whom etc., to be here at the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Wednesday March 21 then next following before the aforementioned sheriffs etc., by whom the truth of the matter can better be known etc. [IMG 1010] because both etc., who neither etc., to recognize etc. And the same day is given to the abovesaid parties to be here according to the custom of the abovesaid city.

At which day here before the aforementioned sheriff came both the aforementioned plaintiff and the abovesaid defendant by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Roger Levold serjeant of the said sheriffs then and there returned and certified to the abovesaid court the abovesaid precept directed to him thereof executed and served in all things etc., with a certain panel of the names of the same prudent and lawful men thus impaneled, but then and there before the aforementioned sheriffs none of them came etc. Therefore that jury is put in respite here until the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the guildhall abovesaid on Saturday March 24 then next following [March 24, 1571] before the aforementioned sheriffs etc. Thereon it was ordered to the abovesaid serjeant etc., by the aforementioned sheriffs at the petition of the attorney of the said plaintiff that he have there and then before the aforementioned sheriffs the bodies etc., by whom etc., because both etc., who neither etc., to recognize etc., and to make further [IMG 1984] the jury between the abovesaid parties and to try the issue abovesaid between the abovesaid parties etc., according to the custom of the abovesaid city. And the same day is given to the abovesaid parties to be there according to the custom of the abovesaid city.

At which certain March 24 here before the aforementioned sheriff the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys came and appeared. And the abovesaid serjeant etc., then and there returned and certified to the abovesaid court the abovesaid precept directed thereof to him executed and served in all things and that each of the abovesaid jurors separately by himself is attached by the pledge of John Doo and Richard Roo. Thereon etc., the abovesaid defendant by their abovesaid attorney then and there in the same court proffered and delivered to the same court a certain other writ emanating out of the court to the said lady queen of her Bench abovesaid directed to the aforementioned mayor and sheriffs of the city of Norwich and each of them to have the body of the said George before the same lady queen to the day and place specified in the same writ under a penalty of £100, the tenor of which writ follows in these words:

Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the mayor and sheriffs of the city of Norwich and each of them, greetings. We order you that you have the body of George Themylthorpe detained in our prison under your custody as it is said under safe and secure conduct together with the day and cause of his taking and detention by whatsoever name the same George is known in the same before us at Westminster on Wednesday next after the quindene of Easter to answer John Branthutt concerning a plea of debt so that we can proceed further in this part as we shall see it to be of right to be proceeded, and this in no way omit under a penalty of £100. And have there then this writ. Tested R. Catlyn at Westminster February 12 in the 13^th year of our reign [February 12, 1571]. Rooper.

Which certain writ then and there at the petition of the attorney of the said defendant was allocated by the same court etc. And afterwards, scilt., at the court of the said lady queen held in the abovesaid guildhall on Wednesday April 4 then next following before the aforementioned sheriffs the abovesaid plaintiff by his abovesaid attorney proffered and delivered to the abovesaid court a certain writ of the said lady queen from the abovesaid Bench directed to the aforementioned mayor and sheriffs of the city of Norwich that they proceed in the abovesaid plea against the abovesaid defendant according to the custom of the abovesaid city, the tenor of which certain writ follows in these words.

Elizabeth [IMG 1985] by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the mayor and sheriffs of the city of Norwich, greetings. Although we lately ordered you by our writ that you have the body of George Themylthorpe detained in our prison under your custody as it was said under safe and secure conduct together with the day and cause of his taking and detention by whatsoever name the same George is known in the same before us at Westminster on the Wednesday next after the quindene of Easter to answer John Branthutt concerning a plea of debt, nevertheless from certain causes now moving us in our court before us we order you and each of you that in whatsoever complaints against that George levied or affirmed at the suit of the abovesaid John Branthutt in our court before you or any of you or pending undetermined before you or any of you now that you proceed with that suchlike speed by which you are able as according to the law and custom of our city of Norwich you shall see that it will proceed, our writ previously directed to you thereof to the contrary in anything notwithstanding. Tested R. Catlyn at Westminster February 12 in the 13^th year of our reign [February 12, 1571].

Which certain writ then and there at [IMG 1012] the petition of the attorney of the said plaintiff was allocated by the abovesaid court etc. Thereon etc., then and there at the petition of the attorney of the said plaintiff by the aforementioned sheriff it was ordered to the abovesaid serjeant etc., further that he have at the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Saturday April 7 then next following before the aforementioned sheriffs etc. the bodies etc., by whom etc., because both etc., who neither etc., to recognize etc., and to make further the jury between the abovesaid parties and to try the abovesaid issue between the parties abovesaid etc., according to the custom of the abovesaid city. And the same day is given to both the aforementioned plaintiff and to the abovesaid defendant to be there according to the custom of the abovesaid city.

At which certain April 7 at the court of the said lady queen held in the guildhall abovesaid before the aforementioned sheriffs came and appeared both the abovesaid plaintiff and the abovesaid defendant by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid serjeant etc., then and there returned and certified to the abovesaid court the abovesaid precept directed thereof to him executed and served in all things and that each of the jurors abovesaid separately by him is attached by pledge of John Fen and Richard Den. And the abovesaid jurors thus impaneled and exacted, some of them came and some of them did not come as appears in the panel etc. And thereon the abovesaid jury is put further in respite for default of the jurors here until the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Saturday April 28 then next following before the aforementioned sheriffs etc. And the same day is given to the parties abovesaid to be there according to the custom of the city abovesaid etc. Thereon further it is ordered by the aforementioned sheriffs at the petition of the attorney of the said plaintiff to the abovesaid serjeant etc., that he have the bodies etc., by whom etc., who both etc., who neither etc., to recognize, and to make further the jury between the abovesaid parties etc., and to try the issue abovesaid between the abovesaid parties etc., according to the customs of the abovesaid city etc., and further then and there it is ordered that he add to the abovesaid 12 etc., 10 such etc., according to the custom of the abovesaid city of whom each etc., by whom etc., because both etc., who neither etc., to recognize in the form abovesaid etc., according to the custom of the abovesaid city. And the same day is given both to the aforementioned plaintiff and to the abovesaid defendant etc., to be here etc.

At which certain April 24 abovesaid both the abovesaid plaintiff and the aforementioned defendant by their abovesaid attorneys came and appeared etc. And the abovesaid serjeant etc., then and there returned to the abovesaid court and certified the abovesaid precept directed to him thereof executed and served in all things. Thereon at the same court of the said lady queen held in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned sheriffs both the abovesaid 12 etc., and the abovesaid 10 such were exacted and 12 of them, viz., Roger Haste, Richard James, Peter Golde, Clement Hyrne, William Morley, John Wrighte, Lawrence Hodshone, Robert Mayheugh, Geoffrey Kytmay, Christofer Barrett, George Walden, and Robert Davy, exacted, then and there appeared, who, then and there were chosen, tried, and sworn to tell the truth of and on the premisses between the abovesaid parties and withdrew from the abovesaid bar. And afterwards at the same court the abovesaid jurors exacted came back to the abovesaid bar to render their verdict of and on the premisses. And thereon the abovesaid John Branthutt at the same court solemnly exacted appeared by his abovesaid attorney, and the abovesaid jurors, sworn, on their oath then and there say that the abovesaid obligatory writing is the deed of the same defendant etc. And they assess the damages of the same plaintiff by occasion of the detention of that debt beyond his outlays and costs put out by him on his suit in this part at 60s, and for his outlays and costs at 6s8d. Thereon afterwards, viz., on the abovesaid April 28 at the same court of the said lady queen held in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned sheriffs according to the custom of the abovesaid city, the abovesaid [IMG 1013] plaintiff by his abovesaid attorney appeared, and by his same attorney sought judgment against the aforementioned defendant both of his debt abovesaid of 1,000 marks and of his damages and costs abovesaid assessed by the abovesaid jurors at 66s8d to be adjudicated to him according to the customs of the abovesaid city, whereby then and there it is considered and adjudicated by the same court that the abovesaid John Branthutt recover against the abovesaid George Themylthorpe his abovesaid debt and his abovesaid damages and costs above assessed by the abovesaid jurors as well as 29s2d adjudicated to the same plaintiff at his request for his abovesaid outlays and costs by the court here by way of increment etc., which certain damages and costs in all amount to £4 15s10d, and the abovesaid defendant in mercy etc., and that the abovesaid defendant be taken etc. And if the abovesaid defendant eloign himself and not render himself to the abovesaid execution, that then the abovesaid Edmund Overton and John Roo mainpernors of the said defendant should be taken etc. And thereon then and there it was ordered to the aforementioned serjeant etc., that he take the abovesaid defendant if etc., and him safely etc., so that he have his body here at the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Wednesday May 2 then next following before the aforementioned sheriffs etc., to satisfy the aforementioned plaintiff of the debt and damages abovesaid, whereof he is convicted etc.

At which certain day here before the aforementioned sheriff came the abovesaid plaintiff by his abovesaid attorney and offered [IMG 1986] himself against the aforementioned defendant concerning the debt and damages abovesaid. And the abovesaid serjeant at mace returned and certified to the abovesaid court that the abovesaid defendant is not found within the liberties of the city of Norwich. Thereon the attorney of the said plaintiff at the same court of the said lady queen held in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned sheriffs sought execution of the abovesaid debt and damages according to the custom of the abovesaid city against the aforementioned Edmund Overton and John Roo mainpernors of the abovesaid defendant, and it is granted to him. And thereon it is ordered to the aforementioned serjeant etc., that he take the abovesaid Edmund Overton and John Roo if etc., and them safely etc., so that he have their bodies at the next court of the said lady queen to be held in the abovesaid guildhall on Saturday May 5 then next following [May 5, 1571] to satisfy the aforementioned plaintiff of the abovesaid debt and damages etc.

Afterwards, scilt., on Thursday next after the quindene of Michaelmas this same term before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid George Themylthorpe by Francis Sandbitche his attorney. And he says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred for this, viz.,

that by the record abovesaid it appears that the abovesaid John Branthutt affirmed his complaint against the abovesaid George concerning a plea that he render to the same John 1,000 marks that he owes him and unjustly detains, for this that the same George on January 22 in the 2^nd year of the reign of the Lady Elizabeth now queen of England at Warwick etc., granted the he was bound to a certain Owen Cleydon and the same John in the abovesaid 1,000 marks, and he does not say by any writing sealed nor by any obligatory bill whereby he indicated to the court how that debt could accrue to the same John, as above it appears of record.

Moreover in the abovesaid record it was manifestly erred for this that the same John in his abovesaid narration says that the abovesaid defendant although often required has not yet rendered the abovesaid 1,000 marks to the aforementioned plaintiff but refused to render them to him etc., whereas it should be that the abovesaid defendant although often required etc., the abovesaid 1,000 marks to the aforementioned Owen Cleydon in his life or to the aforementioned plaintiff after the death of that Owen has not yet rendered etc., but refused to pay them to the aforementioned Owen in his life and to the aforementioned plaintiff after the death of that Owen etc., and because no mention was made there in the same narration of the same Owen Cleydon it was manifestly erred.

And further in the record abovesaid it was manifestly erred for this, viz., that in the same narration it is contained, viz., “and he proffered here in court the abovesaid writing that attests the abovesaid said in the abovesaid form etc.” and in the whole narration no mention was made of any writing, as similarly it appears of record.

And particularly in the abovesaid record and process and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred for this that by the abovesaid record it appears that Saturday, viz., February 17 in the 13^th year of the reign of the said now lady queen the abovesaid George proffered in court to the aforementioned mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs the said lady queen’s writ of habeas corpus directed to the same mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs emanating out of the court of the said lady queen before the queen herself, by which it was ordered to them that they have the body of the said George together with the day and cause of his taking and detention by whatsoever name the same George was known in the same before the said lord queen at Westminster on Friday next after the quindene of Easter then next following to answer John Chytham gentleman concerning a plea of debt, which certain writ before them was allocated as it appears above of record, and because after the allocation of the said writ issue was joined between the abovesaid parties and the aforementioned sheriffs in the abovesaid court proceeded as far as was in them to take the verdict between the same parties with any writ to proceed directed to them thereof, the abovesaid verdict and the abovesaid judgment thereafter rendered was void in law because that issue was joined before one not a judge, therefore manifestly it was erred.

And the same George seeks the said lady queen’s writ to warn the abovesaid John Branthutt to be before the said lady queen to hear the record and process abovesaid etc., and it is granted to him etc. Whereby it is ordered to the sheriffs that by prudent etc they should make it to be known to the aforementioned John that he be before the lady queen 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 George etc.

At which day before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid George by his abovesaid attorney. And the sheriffs return that by virtue of the lady queen’s writ directed to them thereof they made it to be known to the aforementioned John to be before the lady queen at the day and place contained in the abovesaid writ as it was ordered to him to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., by John Denn, Richard Fen, Edward Spren and Robert Bren 4 prudent etc., which certain John according to the warning made thereof to him, solemnly exacted on the fourth day of the plea, does not come. Thereon the abovesaid George says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred by alleging the abovesaid errors alleged above by in the form abovesaid, and that the abovesaid John rejoin to the abovesaid errors etc. And the abovesaid John says nothing to the abovesaid errors. Thereon the abovesaid George seeks that the court of the lady queen here proceed to the examination both of the abovesaid record and process and of the matters above assigned by him. And because the court of the lady queen here is not yet advised to render judgment of and on the premisses, day is given further thereof to the aforementioned George before the lady queen until the quindene of Easter wherever etc., to hear thereof his judgment etc., because the court of the lady queen here is not yet thereof etc.

At which day before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid George by his abovesaid attorney, and because the court of the lady queen here is not yet advised to render judgment of and one the premisses, day thereof is given to the aforementioned George before the lady queen until the morrow of Holy Trinity wherever etc., to hear his judgment thereof etc., because the court of the lady queen here thereof not yet etc.

At which day before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid George by his abovesaid attorney. Thereon, all and singular the premisses having been seen and more fully understood by the court of the lady queen here and mature deliberation having been had thereof, it is considered that the abovesaid judgment on account of the abovesaid errors and others found in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing and that the abovesaid George be restored to everything that he lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment etc.

[Margination:]

Let the judgment be revoked.