Ranulph Webster v. Thomas Johnson

     Shrewsbury attorney: William Horton

     Error plaintiff's king's bench attorney: James Wolryche

AALT images for Webster v. Johnson
0073, 0074, 0075, 0258

The lord king sent to the bailiffs of his town or borough of Shrewsbury 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 bailiffs of his town or borough of Shrewsbury, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the rendering of judgment of a plea that was before you in the court of the abovesaid town without our writ according to the custom of the same town between Ranulph Webster and Thomas Johnson concerning a certain trespass inflicted by the aforementioned Thomas on the same Ranulph as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Thomas 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 as it is said then distinctly and openly send 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 one month after Easter wherever we shall then be in England so that, the abovesaid record and process having been inspected, we may make to be done further thereof for the correction of that error what of right and according to the law and custom of our realm of England should be done. Tested me myself at Westminster February 5 in the 28^th year of our reign [February 5, 1537].

The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ follow in these words:

Shrewsbury. In the little court of the town of Shrewsbury held according to the use and custom of the same town used and approved from time whereof there is no memory and the liberties, privileges, and franchises of this town granted to the late bailiffs, burgesses, and prudent men of the said town by the charters of divers former kings of England progenitors of the now lord king and confirmed by the charter of the same lord king, at Shrewsbury before John Thornes and David Owen bailiffs of the liberty of the abovesaid town on Tuesday next after the feast of St. Dennis and his companions in the 27^th year of the reign of King Henry VIII [October 12, 1535].

At this court Ranulph Webbester in his proper person complains against Thomas Johnson concerning a plea of trespass, and he finds pledges to prosecute: John Doo and Richard Roo. Therefore according to the use and custom of the abovesaid town used and approved from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary at the petition of the abovesaid Ranulph, it is then ordered to William Alcrofte serjeant at mace within the same town and minister of the court abovesaid that he attach the abovesaid Thomas Johnson so that he be at the next small court of the abovesaid town to be held before the bailiffs of the same town on Tuesday next after the feast of St. Luke the evangelist [October 19, 1535] there according to the use and custom and the liberties, privileges and franchises abovesaid to answer to the aforementioned Ranulph Webbester concerning the abovesaid plea. The same day is given to the same Thomas here etc.

And thereon at this same court the abovesaid Ranulph puts in his place William Horton his attorney against the abovesaid Thomas concerning the abovesaid plea etc.

At which certain court held before the said bailiffs of the abovesaid town here, scilt., at the town of Shrewsbury on the abovesaid Tuesday next after the feast of St. Luke the evangelist in the abovesaid year [October 19, 1535] comes the aforementioned Ranulph by his abovesaid attorney and offered himself at the same day against the abovesaid Thomas Johnson concerning the abovesaid plea. And the abovesaid serjeant at mace as well as minister of the abovesaid court now here attests and returns in the same court that the abovesaid Thomas Johnson is attached by pledge of John Barger and Richard Johnson sadler, which certain Thomas, solemnly exacted at the same court, similarly comes in his own proper person.

Thereon the abovesaid Ranulph according to the use and custom and the liberties, privileges, and franchises abovesaid then and there by narrating against the abovesaid Thomas Johnson of and on his abovesaid complaint by his abovesaid attorney complains that the abovesaid Thomas Johnson on April 23 in the 26^th year of the reign of the now lord king Henry VIII [23 April, 1534] with force and armis, viz., with clubs, swords, and knives, out of malice and his premeditated evil intent at le Wylecopp within the liberty of the abovesaid town and the jurisdiction of this court waited in ambush and made assault on the aforementioned Ranulph, and then and there beat, wounded, and mistreated him, and with a certain club that the abovesaid defendant then held in his hands struck the abovesaid Ranulph on the top of his head, and thus the same Ranulph then and there fell to the ground, so that his life was despaired of, by pretext of which the same Ranulph totally lost his hearing, and he inflicted other enormities on him to the grave damage of the same plaintiff and against the peace etc., wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of 20 marks, and thereof he produces suit etc.

And the abovesaid Thomas Johnson in his proper person comes and defends force and injury when etc., and as to the coming with force and arms he says that he is guilty in nothing thereof, and of this he puts himself on the countryside [IMG 0074] And as to the rest of the abovesaid trespass the same Thomas says that the abovesaid Ranulph ought not have his abovesaid action against him, because he says that the same Ranulph at the time at which the abovesaid trespass is supposed to have happened made an assault on the same Thomas and wanted to beat, wound, and mistreat him, whereby the same Thomas then and there defended himself, and thus he says that if any evil happened to the same Ranulph then and there, this was from his own assault and in the defense of the same Thomas. And this he is ready to verify as the court should consider. And thereof he seeks judgment if the abovesaid Ranulph ought to maintain his abovesaid action against him in this case.

And the abovesaid Ranulph by his abovesaid attorney says that the aforementioned Thomas made the abovesaid assault as he alleged above, and without this that any damage or evil happened to the same Ranulph by his own assault as the same Thomas above pleaded. And thereof he puts himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid Thomas similarly.

And thereof process continued between the parties abovesaid by juries put thereof between them, from which day the abovesaid plea was adjourned here until the little court to be held here, scilt., at the town of Shrewsbury abovesaid on the Tuesday May 9 in the abovesaid year of the reign of the king [May 9, 1536].

At which certain court according to the use and custom and liberties, privileges and franchises abovesaid it is ordered to John Cowper, Roger Hussey, and William Alcrofte three serjeants at mace there and ministers of the abovesaid court that they should make to come before the said bailiffs at the same court here to be held, scilt., at the town of Shrewsbury abovesaid on Tuesday May 9, 12 etc., of the vicinity of the abovesaid Shrewsbury etc., by whom etc., and who neither etc., to recognize etc., and because both etc. The same day is given to the abovesaid parties etc.

At which certain little court held before the aforementioned bailiffs here, scilt., at the town of Shrewsbury abovesaid on Tuesday May 9 in the abovesaid year [May 9, 1535] came the parties abovesaid in their proper persons, and the abovesaid serjeants at mace and ministers of the abovesaid court now here attest, returned, and testified the names of the 12, viz., Henry Hale, Thomas Hauke, Thomas Norton, John Bottfeld, John Norton, John Gardyner glover, John Kylford, Richard Clerke butcher, Humfrey Madox, Ralph Barbour, Richard Williams corns’ (?), and Reginald ap Howell baker, and each of them separately is attached by himself by pledge of Richard Hunt and Thomas Spack, which certain 12 jurors according to the use and custom, the liberties, privileges, and franchises abovesaid solemnly exacted then there similarly came, who tried, sworn, and burdened to tell the truth concerning the premisses between the parties abovesaid say on their oath that the abovesaid Thomas Johnson is guilty in everything as the same Ranulph against him supposed above. And they assess the damages of the same Ranulph by occasion of the trespass abovesaid beyond the outlays at £4 3d, and by the court there are adjudicated to them for outlays 17d. Thereon the said Ranulph Webbester seeks judgment of and on the premisses to be rendered to him etc.

And all and singular the premisses having been seen here and fully understood, it is considered by the court that the abovesaid Ranulph recover against the abovesaid Thomas his damages and outlays in the abovesaid form etc. And [IMG 0075] the abovesaid Thomas in mercy etc.

Afterwards, scilt., on June 28 this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Thomas Johnson by James Wolryche his attorney and says that in the record and process and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it is manifestly erred in this, viz.,

that whereas the defendant in the first action as to the coming with force and arms pleaded that he was guilty in nothing thereof and of this he put himself on the countryside, on which certain plea the jury was taken without any replication of the plaintiff, scilt., “and the same plaintiff similarly” and thus the jury is taken where no issue was thereof ever joined.

Likewise it is erred in this that whereas the abovesaid Ranulph pleaded in the abovesaid action to the assault, beating, wounding and mistreatment that the said Thomas Johnson in the said action made an assault on the same Ranulph and the same then Ranulph defended himself and if any evil then came to the same Thomas Johnson that this was from the assault of the said then Thomas [IMG 0258] Johnson himself and in defense of the same then Ranulph, to which the same then Thomas Johnson [said] that the aforementioned then Ranulph made the abovesaid assault on the same then Thomas Johnson as he above alleged by pleading without this that any damage emanated to the same then Thomas Johnson from his own assault, and thereof put himself on the countryside, and the said then Ranulph similarly etc., whereas by that replication it is insufficient in law because that replication ought to be that “the said then Ranulph made the abovesaid assault of his own injury without such cause” and of this to have put himself on the countryside etc.: on the issue above joined the said then Ranulph ought to maintain all that is contained in the travers etc.

Likewise it is erred in this that whereas at that day when the issue was joined no venire facias was awarded but the process was continued and the jury between the abovesaid parties put, whereas no jury was put between them before that continuation, but at the next court then following the jury was awarded between them and not before, and therefore in this it is erred etc.

Likewise it is erred in this by that that the verdict was given that the said then Ranulph was guilty in everything as the said then Thomas Johnson above narrated against him etc., where one issue as to the coming with force and arms was “not guilty” and the other issue was “if evil that came to Thomas Johnson it was from his own proper assault” or “of the own proper injury of the said Thomas Johnson” or not, which certain issue is still not found or presented, and notwithstanding this judgment was rendered for the abovesaid then Ranulph and thus the abovesaid judgment is erroneous and void at law.

And he seeks a writ to warn the abovesaid Ranulph 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 Ranulph that he be before the lord king on the Octaves of St. Michael wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the same Thomas Johnson etc.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Thomas Johnson by his abovesaid attorney. And the sheriff did not send the writ thereof. Thereon the abovesaid Ranulph on the 4^th day solemnly exacted came by George Symcote. And thereon the abovesaid Thomas Johnson as before says that in the record and process and also in the rendering of the judgment abovesaid manifestly it is erred by alleging the abovesaid errors in the form abovesaid. And he seeks that the abovesaid judgment on account of those errors and others found in the record and process be revoked, annulled, and wholly had for nothing, and that he be restored to everything that he lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment, and that the abovesaid Ranulph rejoin to the abovesaid errs etc.

         Thereon the abovesaid Ranulph seeks thereof day to emparl, and it is granted to him etc. And thereon day thereof is given to the parties abovesaid before the lord king until on the Octaves of St. Hilary wherever etc., viz, to the aforementioned Ranulph to emparl etc., and then to rejoin to the abovesaid errors etc.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. And thereon day thereof is given the abovesaid parties before the lord king at 15 days after Easter wherever etc., viz. to the aforementioned Ranulph to emparl etc and then to rejoin to the abovesaid errors etc.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid parties by their attorneys abovesaid. And thereon day thereof is given to the parties abovesaid before the lord king on the Octaves of St. Michael wherever etc., viz., to the aforementioned Ranulph to emparl etc., and then to rejoin to the abovesaid errors.