Thomas Moore of Southampton, merchant v. William Meryvall of Salisbury, mercer
Salisbury attorneys: John Moggridge, Nicholas Hill
Error plaintiff's king's bench attorney: Michael Lowe
Error on a case in the court of Salisbury, Wiltshire (Easter term, 1571)
AALT images for Moore v. MeryvallThis action of error on a case of debt in the court of Salisbury had as assigned errors the lack of specification of the name of the presiding officer of the court and the insufficient specification concerning the bill evidencing the debt, that is, whether it was obligatory and whether it was sealed. Note that the first process awarded here in debt was that the defendant be taken (a capias), and that the assigned errors did not include an assertion that a summons was the necessary first process to be awarded in debt.
The lady queen sent to the bailiff of the liberty of John, bishop of Salisbury of her city of Salisbury her writ close in these words:
Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the bailiff of the liberty of John, bishop of Salisbury, of her city of Salisbury, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the rendering of judgment of the plea that was before you in the court of the abovesaid city without our writ according to the custom of the same city between Thomas Moore otherwise called Thomas Moore of Southampton, merchant and William Meryvall otherwise called William Meryfall of the city of Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire mercer concerning a debt of £11 13s4d that the same Thomas exacted from the aforementioned William as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same William 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 together with everything touching them to us under your seal, and this writ, so that we have them on the Octaves of St. Hilary 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 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 November 24 in the 13th year of our reign [November 24, 1570].
The record and process of which mention was made in the abovesaid writ follow in these words:
The City of Salisbury. Pleas held at the city of Salisbury abovesaid in the guildhall there on September 26 in the 12th year of the reign of the Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., [September 26, 1570] before the bailiff of the city abovesaid according to the custom of the same city used and approved in the same from time whereof there is no memory of men etc.
And now, scilt., on the day and year abovesaid, came Thomas Moore of Southampton, merchant, and affirmed a certain complaint of a plea of debt on a demand of £11 13s4d against William Meryfal of the city of Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire mercer. And he seeks process to be made thereof for him against the aforementioned William Meryfall being an outsider according to the custom of the same city. Thereon it is ordered to William Chamberlayn serjeant at mace within the city of Salisbury abovesaid and minister of the court of the same city that he take the abovesaid William Meryfal if he is found within the abovesaid city and guard him safely so that he can have his body here before the aforementioned bailiff at the next court to be held in the abovesaid guildhall, scilt., September 28 then next following [September 28, 1570] to answer the aforementioned Thomas More in the abovesaid complaint.
The City of Salisbury. Pleas held at the city of Salisbury abovesaid in the guildhall there on September 28 in the abovesaid 12th year [September 28, 1570] before the aforementioned bailiff according to the custom etc.
And now at this day came the abovesaid Thomas Moore and offered himself against the aforementioned William Meryfall in the abovesaid complaint. And thereon the abovesaid serjeant at mace and minister of the abovesaid court now sends that by virtue of the abovesaid order directed thereof to him he took the aforementioned William Meryfall by his body, which certain body he had ready on the day and place contained within as it was ordered to him by the abovesaid precept.
And the abovesaid Thomas More then and there puts in his place John Moggridge against the aforementioned William Meryfall in a plea of debt on a demand of £11 13s4d.
And the abovesaid William Meryfall then similarly puts in his place Nicholas Hill against the abovesaid Thomas More in the same plea.
And thereon the abovesaid Thomas More otherwise called Thomas More of Southampton, merchant complains against the abovesaid William Meryfall of the city of Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire, mercer, otherwise called William Meryvall of the city of Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire, mercer, concerning a plea of debt on a demand of £11 13s4d that he owes him and unjustly detains etc. And wherefore the same Thomas Moore by the abovesaid John Moggrydge his attorney says that, whereas the said defendant on August 6 in the year of our Lord 1567 by his bill bearing the date the day and year abovesaid granted that he owed the aforementioned plaintiff the abovesaid £11 13s4d to be paid to the same plaintiff or his executors or assigns on September 18 then next following, nevertheless the abovesaid defendant although often asked has not yet paid the abovesaid £11 13s4d to the same plaintiff but wholly refused to pay them to him to this time and still refuses, wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of 20 marks, and thereof he produces suit etc. And here he proffers here in court the abovesaid writing that attests the abovesaid debt in the abovesaid form. [IMG 0665]
And the abovesaid William Meryvall by his abovesaid attorney comes and defends force and injury when etc. And he seeks license thereof to emparl here until the next court here to be held, scilt., on October 21 next to come [October 21, 1570] etc. And he has it etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Thomas Moore etc.
At which day came the abovesaid William Meryvall by his abovesaid attorney. And he defends force and injury when etc. And it is said to the same attorney of the same William Meryfall that he should answer for the same William his master to the aforementioned Thomas Moore in the abovesaid plea. And the same attorney says that he is not informed by the same William Meryfall his master concerning any response to be given for the same William to the aforementioned Thomas in the abovesaid plea, and says nothing else thereof, whereby the same Thomas Moore remains against the aforementioned William Meryfall thereof undefended.
Therefore it is considered that the abovesaid Thomas Moore recover against the aforementioned William Meryfal his abovesaid debt and his damages by occasion of the detention of that debt at 16s4d adjudicated to the same Thomas More by his assent by the court here. And the abovesaid William Meryfall in mercy etc.
Afterwards, scilt., on Wednesday next after the quindene of Easter in this same term before the lady queen at Westminster comes the abovesaid William Meryvall by Michael Lowe his attorney. And he says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred in this, scilt.,
that whereas each court of record within this realm of England ought to be held before some certain person or persons being judges or judge of that court, by the abovesaid record there is not named any certain person before whom the abovesaid first court of the abovesaid bishop of Salisbury in the abovesaid city was held in the abovesaid form, and therefore manifestly it was erred, as above appears of record.
Moreover, in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred for this, viz., that whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid Thomas More narrated against [IMG 1482] the same William Meryvall concerning a plea of debt of and on a certain bill by which the abovesaid William Meryvall granted that he owed the aforementioned Thomas More the abovesaid £11 13s4d, nevertheless by that narration or by any words expressed in the same it does not appear that that bill was obligatory nor that that bill was sealed with the seal of the abovesaid William Meryvall, and thus manifestly it was erred, as above it appears of record.
And the same William Meryvall seeks the lady queen’s writ to warn the aforementioned Thomas Moore to be before the lady queen. And it is granted to him etc. And thereon it is ordered to the sheriff of Wiltshire that by prudent etc., of his bailiwick he should make known to the aforementioned Thomas Moore that he be before the lady queen on the morrow of Holy Trinity wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the same William Meryvall etc.
[Nothing more is enrolled.]