James Bettes and Henry Huttoft collectors of the customs and subsidies of the Port of Southampton v. John Capon merchant of Florence
Southampton attorneys: Stephen Omydeux
Plaintiff in error’s attorney in king’s bench: Richard Heywood
Error in king's bench (Easter term, 1538) on an action in the court of Southampton, Hampshire
AALT images for Best v. Dever The action of error on a case of debt in the pie powder court of
Southampton relates the process used by Southampton in situations in
which the debtor, here a merchant of Florence, did not appear. The
innumerable errors alleged mostly concerned very exacting points of
specificity in enrollment, in addition to a claim of discontinuance and
the violation the statute limiting pie powder courts to matters that had
taken place during market time and in the market. The assignment of
errors stopped short in mid-sentence, a probable indication that some
acceptable arrangement had been reached. The lord king sent to the mayor and bailiffs of his town of Southampton
and the bailiffs of the pie powder court and of each of the abovesaid
courts: Henry VIII by the grace of God king of England and of France,
defender of the faith, lord of Ireland, and on earth the supreme
head of the English church to the mayor and bailiffs of his town of
Southampton and the bailiffs of the pie powder court of the same
town and each of them, 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 James Bettes
and Henry Huttoft the collectors of our customs and subsidies of
the port of the same town abovesaid and John Capon merchant of
Florence concerning a debt of £30 18s7d that the same James and
Henry exact from the aforementioned John together with 10s6d for
his outlays and costs made, had, and adjudicated on his suit thereof
as it is said manifest error has intervened to the grave damage of
the same John as we have accepted from his complaint, we,
wanting the error if any there was to be corrected in due manner
and full and swift justice to be done to the abovesaid parties in this
part, order you that, if judgment has been rendered thereof, then
send the record and process abovesaid with everything touching
them under your seals distinctly and openly, and this writ, so that
we have them on the morrow of the Ascension of the Lord
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 what of right and according to the law and custom
of our realm of England should be done. Tested me myself at
Westminster May 8 in the 30th year of our reign [May 8, 1538]. The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ
follow in these words: The Town of Southampton. The pie powder court of the lord king
of the abovesaid town held by reason of the market in the
abovesaid town had every day there before Thomas Husse mayor
of the said town and Thomas Bory and Thomas Rygges bailiffs of
the lord king of the same town in the guildhall at the third hour
after noon on Tuesday, scilt., March 12 in the 29th year of the reign
of King Henry VIII [March 12 1538] according to the ancient
customs of the abovesaid town used in the same town from time
whereof memory of men does not run to the contrary. James Bettes and Henry Huttoft the collectors of customs and
subsidies of the lord king of the port of the town of Southampton
by their attorney complain against John Capon merchant of
Florence concerning a plea of debt on a demand of £30 8s7d.
Pledges to prosecute: John Doo and Richard Roo. And they seek
process to be made for them according to the custom of the town
abovesaid, whereby according to the custom of the same town at
the petition of the abovesaid James and Henry it is ordered to
Robert Haringdon serjeant at mace of the abovesaid mayor and
minister of this court that he attach the abovesaid James Capon if
etc., and safely etc., so that he have his body here at the next court,
scilt., at the ninth hour before noon of Wednesday, scilt., March 13
next to come [March 13, 1538] before the aforementioned mayor
and bailiffs to be held here in the guildhall to respond to the
aforementioned James and Henry concerning the abovesaid plea of
complaint according to the custom of the abovesaid town etc. The
same day and same hour are given to the aforementioned James
Bettes and Henry Huttoft here etc. The Town of Southampton. The lord king’s pie powder court of
the abovesaid town held by reason of the market had each day in
the abovesaid town there before Thomas Husse mayor of the said
town and Thomas Bory and Thomas Rygges bailiffs of the lord
king of the same town in the guildhall there at the ninth hour
before noon of Wednesday, scilt, March 13 in the 29th year of the
reign of King Henry VIII according to the ancient custom of the
abovesaid town used in the same town from time whereof the
memory of men runs not to the contrary. It was ordered to Robert Haryngdon serjeant at mace of the
abovesaid mayor and the minister of this court that according to the
custom of the town abovesaid he attach John Capon merchant of
Florence if etc., and safely etc., so that he have his body here at
this court to respond to James Bettes and Henry Huttoft collectors
of the lord king’s customs and subsidies of the port of the town of
Southampton concerning a plea of debt on a demand of £30 8s7d,
and now here at this court come the abovesaid James and Henry by
their attorney, and they offer themselves against the
aforementioned John Capon concerning the abovesaid plea. And
he, solemnly exacted, did not come. And the aforementioned
serjeant at mace and minister of this court now here sends that the
abovesaid John Capon is not found. Therefore, according to the
customs of the town abovesaid used from time whereof the
memory of men runs not to the contrary, it is ordered to the
serjeant at mace and minister of this court that he attach the
aforementioned John by his goods and chattels that can be found
within the liberty of the abovesaid town, so that he be here at the
next court to be held, scilt., at the 3rd hour after noon of the same
Wednesday before the aforementioned mayor and bailiffs in the
guildhall here to answer the aforementioned James and Henry
concerning the abovesaid plea of the abovesaid complaint
according to the custom of the abovesaid town etc. The same hour
is given to the aforementioned James Bettes and Henry Huttoft
here etc. [IMG 0131] The Town of Southampton. The lord king’s pie powder court of
the abovesaid town held by reason of the market had in the
abovesaid town each day there before Thomas Husse mayor of the
same town and Thomas Bory and Thomas Rigges the lord king’s
bailiffs of the same town in the guildhall there at the 3rd hour after
noon of Wednesday, scilt., March 13 in the 29th year of the reign of
King Henry VIII [March 13, 1538] according to the ancient custom
of the abovesaid town used in the same town from time whereof
the memory of men runs not to the contrary. It was ordered to Robert Haryngdon serjeant at mace of the
abovesaid mayor and minister of this court that according to the
custom of the town abovesaid he attach John Capon merchant of
Florence by his goods and chattels that can be found within the
liberty of the abovesaid town so that they [sic] be here at this court
to answer James Bettes and Henry Huttoft collectors of the lord
king’s customs and subsidies of the port of the town of
Southampton concerning a plea of debt on a demand of £30 8s7d.
And now here at this court come the abovesaid James and Henry
by their attorney and offered themselves against the
aforementioned John Capon concerning the abovesaid plea. And
he, solemnly exacted, does not come, but makes his first default.
And the aforementioned serjeant at mace and minister of this court
now here sends that the abovesaid John Capon is attached by his
goods and chattels, viz., by 5 pokes of wool weighing 4¼ sacks of
wool. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid town
used from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the
contrary day is given to the same John Capon by the court here
until the next court to be held before the aforementioned mayor
and bailiffs in the guildhall here at the 9th hour before noon on
Thursday, scilt, March 14 next to come here to respond to the
aforementioned James and Henry concerning the abovesaid plea of
the complaint abovesaid. The same day and the same hour are
given to the aforementioned James and Henry here etc., and
meantime according to the custom of the town abovesaid let there
be recorded against the abovesaid John Capon the first default. The Town of Southampton. The lord king’s pie powder court of
the abovesaid town held by reason of the market in the abovesaid
town had each day in the abovesaid town before Thomas Husse
mayor of the said town and Thomas Bory and Thomas Rygges the
lord king’s bailiffs of the same town in the guildhall there at the 9th
hour before noon on Thursday, scilt., March 14 in the 29th year of
the reign of King Henry VIII [March 14, 1538] according to the
ancient custom of the abovesaid town used in the same from time
whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary. James Bettes and Henry Huttoft collectors of the lord king’s
customs and subsidies of the port of the town of Southampton by
their attorney offer themselves against John Capon merchant of
Florence concerning a plea of debt on a demand of £30 8s7d;
thereon James Capon at the petition of the abovesaid James and
Henry solemnly exacted does not come, but makes his second
default etc. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid
town used from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the
contrary day is given to the aforementioned John Capon
concerning the abovesaid plea here until the next court to be held
before the aforementioned mayor [IMG 0304] and bailiffs in the
guildhall here, viz., at the 3rd hour after noon on Friday March 15
next to come to answer the aforementioned James and Henry
concerning the abovesaid plea of the abovesaid complaint. The
same day and the same hour are given to the aforementioned James
and Henry here etc. And meanwhile according to the custom of
the abovesaid town let there be recorded against the
aforementioned John Capon the second default. The Town of Southampton. The lord king’s pie powder court of
the abovesaid town held by reason of the market had in the
abovesaid town each day there before Thomas Husse mayor of the
said town and Thomas Bory and Thomas Rigges the lord king’s
bailiffs of the same town in the guildhall there on the 3rd hour after
noon on Friday, scilt., March 15 in the 29th year of the reign of
King Henry VIII [March 15, 1538] according to the ancient
customs of the abovesaid town used in the same town from time
whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary. James Bettes and Henry Huttoft collectors of the lord king’s
customs and subsidies of the port of the town of Southampton by
their attorney offer themselves against John Capon merchant of
Florence concerning a plea of debt on a demand of £30 8s7d.
Thereon the said John Capon at the petition of the abovesaid James
and Henry solemnly exacted does not come, but makes his third
default. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid town
used from time whereof there is no memory of men day is given to
the aforementioned John Capon concerning the abovesaid plea by
the court until the next court to be held before the aforementioned
mayor and bailiffs in the guildhall abovesaid, viz., at the 9th hour
before noon of the Saturday March 16 next to come here to answer
the aforementioned James and Henry concerning the abovesaid
plea of the abovesaid complaint. The same day and the same hour
are given to the aforementioned James and Henry here etc. And
meantime according to the custom of the abovesaid town let there
be recorded against the abovesaid John Capon the third default etc. The Town of Southampton. The lord king’s pie powder court of
the abovesaid town held by reason of the market in the abovesaid
town had there each day before Thomas Husse mayor of the said
town and Thomas Bory and Thomas Rygges the lord king’s bailiffs
of the same town in the guildhall there at the 9th hour before noon
of the Saturday, scilt., March 16 in the 29th year of the reign of
King Henry VIII according to the ancient custom of the abovesaid
town used from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the
contrary. James Bettes and Henry Huttoft collectors of the lord king’s
customs and subsidies of the port of the town of Southampton put
in their place Stephen Omydeux against John Capon merchant of
Florence concerning a plea of debt. James Bettes and Henry Huttoft collectors of the lord king’s
customs and subsidies of the port of the town of Southampton by
their attorney offer themselves against John Capon merchant of
Florence concerning a plea of debt on a demand of £30 8s7d.
Thereon the abovesaid John Capon at the petition of the abovesaid
James and Henry solemnly exacted does not come, but makes here
his fourth default. Therefore that fourth default is recorded by the
court here. And thereon those four defaults made by the
aforementioned John and recorded by the court here, the abovesaid
James and Henry according to the custom of the abovesaid town
used in the same from time whereof the memory of men runs not to
the contrary by Stephen Omideux their abovesaid attorney say that
the abovesaid John Capon owed and does not render to the same
James and Henry the abovesaid £30 8s7d, and for this, viz., that,
whereas the abovesaid John Capon on August 20 in the 29th year of
the reign of the now lord king [August 20, 1537] here, scilt., at the
town of Southampton within the jurisdiction of this court
accounted with the same James and Henry concerning divers sums
of money of the same James and Henry received before that time
by the aforementioned John Capon to render account thereof to the
same James and Henry when he should be asked thereof, and on
that account the abovesaid John was found in arrears toward the
same James and Henry in the abovesaid £30 8s7d, whereby action
accrued to the same James and Henry to exact and have from the
aforementioned John Capon the same £30 8s7d, nevertheless the
same John although often asked has not yet rendered those £30
8s7d to the same James and Henry but to this time has refused to
render them to them and still refuses, wherefore they say that they
are worse off and have damages to the value of 40s, and thereof
they produce suit etc. And thereon according to the custom of the abovesaid town
used in the same town from time whereof the memory of men runs
not to the contrary, because the abovesaid John Capon at the
abovesaid fourth court after the abovesaid goods and chattels were
attached did not appear, therefore let the abovesaid goods and
chattels be appreciated etc. And nevertheless let those goods and
chattels according to the custom abovesaid remain here in care for
the 40 days next to come to be guarded here safely to be delivered
to both or one of the abovesaid James and Henry or John Capon as
by the consideration of this court they ought, viz., to the
aforementioned James and Henry if the judgment in the abovesaid
plea is rendered for the same James and Henry or to the
aforementioned John Capon if he within the abovesaid 40 days
should come and prove the abovesaid complaint etc. And Nicholas
[IMG 0305] Degra and Maurice Maryne present here in court in
their proper persons are assigned by the court here to appreciate the
abovesaid goods and chattels according to the true value of the
same and they should make it to be established how etc., here at
the next court to be held, scilt., at the 9th hour before noon on
Monday March 18 next to come [March 18, 1538]. The same day
and the same hour are given to the aforementioned James and
Henry here etc. At which certain court held before the aforementioned mayor and
bailiffs on the same Monday March [manuscript says “May”] 18 at
the 9th hour before noon of the same day in the 29th year of the
reign of the now lord king come both the abovesaid James and
Henry by their abovesaid attorney and the abovesaid Nicholas
Degra and Maurice in their proper persons and the same Nicholas
and Maurice present here in court appreciate the goods and chattels
abovesaid at £40 as by a bill subscribed by their hands certified by
them at this court and remaining here in the files more fully
appears. Which certain Nicholas Degra afterwards, scilt., at this
court according to the custom of the abovesaid town used in the
same town from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the
contrary seeks the abovesaid goods and chattels to be delivered to
him to the use of the abovesaid John Capon for the abovesaid price
by the court here, and he undertook on himself for the abovesaid
John Capon that the same Nicholas would render to the same
James and John the abovesaid sum of £30 8s7d if judgment thereof
in the court of the abovesaid town or in any other court of the lord
king for abovesaid James and Henry against the aforementioned
John Capon by due form of law should be rendered, and of the
residue of the price of the abovesaid goods and chattels of the
abovesaid John Capon or of the whole price thereof to the same
John if he within the 40 days should come and prove the abovesaid
complaint etc., would faithfully pay or restore at least those goods
and chattels or the whole price of the same as above they are
appreciated to the court here. Therefore let the same Nicholas have
the abovesaid goods and chattels by the abovesaid undertaking etc.
And afterwards, scilt., at the lord king’s pie powder court of the
abovesaid town held by reason of the market had in the abovesaid
town each day there before Thomas Husse mayor of the said town
and Thomas Bory and Thomas Rygges the lord king’s bailiffs of
the same town in the guildhall there at the 9th hour before noon of
the Wednesday, scilt., May 8 in the 30th year of the reign of King
Henry VIII [May 8, 1538] according to the ancient customs of the
town abovesaid used in the same town from time whereof the
memory of men runs not to the contrary come the abovesaid James
Bettes and Henry Huttoft by their abovesaid attorney, and the
abovesaid John Capon although solemnly exacted did not come,
but defaulted. And thereon James and Henry say that the 40 days
have elapsed after the abovesaid four defaults made by the
aforementioned John Capon in the abovesaid plea and recorded by
the court here. And according to the custom of the abovesaid town
used in the same from time whereof the memory of men runs not to
the contrary seeks judgment and his abovesaid debt together with
damages etc., to be adjudicated to him etc. And because to the
court of the lord king here it is sufficiently established and
evidently appears that the allegation of the abovesaid James and
Henry is true and that the abovesaid John Capon at any court here
within the abovesaid 40 days did not at all appear to prove the
abovesaid complaint nor did anyone else come within the 40 days
after the last abovesaid default of the 4 abovesaid defaults made in
the abovesaid form and recorded to claim or prove property in the
abovesaid goods and chattels, it is considered by this court that the
same James and Henry recover against the aforementioned John
Capon his abovesaid debt and his damages by occasion of the
detention of that debt adjudicated by the court here at 10s to the
same James and Henry by their assent. And the abovesaid John
Capon in mercy etc., which certain debt and damages the
abovesaid Nicholas Degra present here in court in his proper
person by order of the court here according to the custom of the
abovesaid town used from time whereof the memory of men runs
not to the contrary instantly paid here in court to the
aforementioned James and Henry etc. Afterwards, scilt., on June 3 this same term before the lord king at
Westminster comes the abovesaid John Capon by Richard Heywood 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, viz., In the first place it was erred in this that it appears by the abovesaid
record that it was ordered to Richard Haryngdon serjeant at mace
[IMG 0132] of the abovesaid mayor etc., that he attach the
abovesaid John Capon if etc., and it appears by the abovesaid
record that the abovesaid complaint on which the abovesaid
process emanated was and is of a certain debt, where according to
the due order of right the precept for summoning the defendant
named in the said complaint etc., should emanate first and not the
process for taking the body of the abovesaid John Capon, etc. Likewise, it does not appear in the record by which person the said
process of attachment of the said John Capon was considered etc.,
therefore in this it was erred etc., nor at whose petition the
abovesaid precept emanated etc. Likewise, it was erred in this that the same serjeant at mace did not
return the precept directed to him etc., but generally that the same
John Capon is not found etc., and such a return can be made
equally well on the summons as on the abovesaid attachment etc. Likewise it was erred in this that it is not declared in the abovesaid
record that by the abovesaid court at the petition of the said James
Bettes and Henry Huttoft it was ordered to the aforementioned
serjeant at mace that according to the custom of the abovesaid
town he should attach the abovesaid John Capon by his goods and
chattels etc., and it appears by the record abovesaid that after the
attachment abovesaid made and four separate defaults recorded,
the abovesaid James and Henry obtained their judgment of and on
the abovesaid complaint against the aforementioned John Capon
etc., and this cannot happen unless by special custom of the
abovesaid town etc., and because that custom of the abovesaid
town is not declared in the abovesaid record, there it is erred in this
etc. Likewise, it is erred in this that it appears by the abovesaid record
that the first default was recorded on the said John Capon by the
abovesaid court etc., before the attachment abovesaid made etc.,
but in the record abovesaid it is declared that the same John Capon
made four separate defaults at four separate courts held next and
immediately following at the abovesaid town, which by no
agreement can be verified than that the first default of the said John
Capon was recorded before the abovesaid attachment returned etc. Likewise it is erred in this that it is not declared by the abovesaid
record that the said serjeant at mace attached the abovesaid John
Capon by his goods, but only that the same serjeant at mace
returned that the abovesaid John Capon was attached etc. Likewise, it is erred in this that it appears by the abovesaid record
that according to the custom of the abovesaid town from time
whereof memory does not run day was given by the court to the
aforementioned John Capon etc., and thus it appears fully by the
abovesaid record that there is no memory of the customs used in
the abovesaid town, and on account of the repugnancy of the
abovesaid matter, therefore it is erred in this etc. Likewise, it is erred in this that the 9th hour before noon of
Thursday, scilt., March 14 in the 29th year of the reign of King
Henry VIII day was given until the next court, viz., the 3rd hour
after noon on the Friday next following, and because no mention is
made in the record that from the court held after the noon of the
said Thursday and at each day from the time of the abovesaid
complaint raised divers separate courts were held and because no
court was held on the said Friday before noon of the same day as
on other preceding days, therefore the abovesaid complaint was
discontinued etc. Likewise, it is erred in this that it appears by the abovesaid record
that at divers separate courts held before March 16 in the 29th year
of the reign of King Henry VIII at the said town of Southampton
the said James Bettes and Henry Huttoft by their attorney offered
themselves against the aforementioned John Capon of and on the
abovesaid plea and before the said March 16 in the 29th year
abovesaid, no warrant was put in to the said court by the said
James Bettes and Henry Huttoft whereby the said James and Henry
put in their place Stephen Omydeux etc., therefore in this it is erred
etc. Likewise, it is erred in this that it appears by the abovesaid record
that on March 16 in the 29th year of the reign of King Henry VIII
the said James Bettes and Henry Huttoft put in their place Stephen
Omydeux against John Capon merchant of Florence concerning a
plea of debt and it is not declared by the abovesaid record
concerning a plea of debt [IMG 0133] abovesaid etc nor that they
put in their place the abovesaid Stephen against the aforementioned
John Capon etc., therefore in this it is erred. Likewise, it is erred in this that it appears by the abovesaid record
that the said James and Henry Huttoft declared against the
aforementioned John Capon as it appears more fully in the
abovesaid record and by the law of England the complaining party
is bound not to declare against the party defending before his
appearance etc., and because the certitude of the custom of that
town is not certified by the abovesaid record at which time the
parties complaining declared against the party defending, and
moreover the same John Capon says that the abovesaid declaration
was made by the said James Bettes and Henry Huttoft on that same
day on which the fourth default was recorded and the said James
and Henry if any declaration in that case ought to have been made
it ought to have been put in to the said court at the next court after
the abovesaid fourth default was recorded etc., and not before,
therefore in this it is erred etc. Likewise, it is erred in this that it manifestly appears by the
abovesaid record that the said declaration of the aforementioned
James Bettes and Henry Huttoft made in the manner and form
abovesaid is less sufficient in law, because it does not appear by
the abovesaid record that the said James Bettes and Henry Huttoft
in their proper persons nor by their attorney abovesaid sought
against the said John Capon the said £30 8s7d etc., and the
certitude is not declared whether the abovesaid John Capon
received the said £30 8s7d by the hands of the said James and
Henry Huttoft or by the hands of some other person or by the
hands of some other persons etc., and because in the said
declaration it does not appear whether the abovesaid John Capon
accounted together with the aforementioned James Bettes and
Henry Huttoft or if the abovesaid account was made before
auditors assigned by them or not, therefore the declaration
abovesaid is uncertain, and because it is recited by the declaration
that the same John Capon “inventus fuisset” in arrears etc., and it
does not say in fact that the same John “inventus fuit” in arrears
etc., but he could be found in arrears, therefore by the incertitude
and insufficiency of the premisses the same John Capon says that
the said declaration of the said James and Henry Huttoft made in
the manner and form abovesaid is less sufficient in law, therefore it
is erred etc. Likewise, it is erred in this that it appears by the abovesaid record
that the said declaration of the said James Bettes and Henry Huttoft
is without a date on the certain account by the said John Capon
supposed to have been made on August 20 in the 29th year of the
reign of the now lord king, scilt., at the town of Southampton
within the jurisdiction of the abovesaid court with the same James
and Henry concerning divers sums of money of the same James
and Henry received by the aforementioned John Capon to account
thereof to the same James and Henry when he should be asked
thereof, whereas that time received [IMG 0306] etc., as of record,
these things remaining, it more fully appears [the sense of this
clause escapes me], and also it appears by the abovesaid record
that the said James and Henry did not affirm the said complaint of
the debt on a demand of the abovesaid £30 8s7d against the
aforementioned John Capon within the abovesaid town of
Southampton if not on March 12 in the 29th year of the reign of the
said now lord king and not before, and it well appears by the
statute published in 1 Richard III lately de facto and not de jure
king of England that no seneschal, under-seneschal, bailiff or
commissioner nor any other official or minister of any courts of pie
powder looking to any market should hold any plea on any action
at the suit of any person or any persons except the plaintiff or
plaintiffs or his or their attorney in the presence of the defendant or
defendants if he or they or their attorney require that they will
swear on the holy gospels of God on the abovesaid declaration that
the contract, trespass, or other deed contained in the same
declaration was made or committed within that market and at the
time of the abovesaid market where the plaintiff took his action
and within the limits and jurisdiction of the same market, and
although the plaintiff or plaintiffs by their oath not affirm this by
their oath, still the defendant or defendants in no way shall be
precluded by this but they can answer and plead to the action in the
quashing of those complaints to offer this issue that the contract,
trespass or other deed contained with that declaration on which
such plaintiff and plaintiffs narrate was not done or committed
within the time of the abovesaid market and jurisdiction of that
market but outside the time of the abovesaid market in some other
places outside the jurisdiction of that market according to the truth
in that part, and if it is thus tried and either the plaintiff or the
plaintiffs or his or their attorneys refuse to swear on the Holy
Gospels in the abovesaid form that then the defendant or
defendants will be quit, dismissed, and exonerated in this part
outside the abovesaid court, but still the plaintiff will take his
advantage at the common law or in some other competent place at
his pleasure the said ordinance, act, and authority of the said
Parliament abovesaid notwithstanding, as the abovesaid act of
Parliament among other things contained in the same more fully
appears, and the same John Capon says that here it appears of
record that the said complaint of debt on which the said James
Bettes and Henry Huttoft at the said town of Southampton narrated
against the same John Capon was affirmed on March 12 in the 29th
year of the reign of the lord king, and on the same complaint the
said James and Henry declared on a certain account made on
August 20 in the 29th year of the reign of the now lord king at the
town of Southampton abovesaid made with the same James and
Henry concerning divers sums of money of the same James and
Henry by the aforementioned John Capon [received to render] an
account thereof [and the enrollment simply ends without more]
0130,
0131,
0304,
0305,
0132,
0133,
0306
