Thomas Reynoldes, alderman and Howell Kinven v. Robert William executor of Morgan Hughes
Error in king's bench (Michaelmas term, 1607) on an action in the court of Usk, Monmouthshire
AALT images for Reynoldes & Kinven v. William This action of error on an action of trespass on the case in Usk raised,
in the assigned errors, the necessity of specifying consideration and for
specifying a special custom for the use of a jury of only six men. The lord king sent to the provost and bailiffs of William, earl of
Pembroke of his town of Usk his writ close in these words: James by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, and
Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the provost and bailiffs of
William, earl of Pembroke of his town of Usk, greetings. Because
in the record and process and also in the rendering of the 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
Thomas Rinoldes and Howell Kinven and Robert William
concerning a debt of 43s that the same Thomas and Howell exact
from the aforementioned Robert as it is said manifest error
intervened to the grave damage of the same Robert as we have
received from his complaint, we, wanting the error if any there was
to be corrected in the 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 Easter five weeks wherever we shall then be
in England, so that, the abovesaid record and process having been
inspected, we may make to be done further 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 March 27 in the 5th year of our reign of England,
France, and Ireland, and the 40th of Scotland [March 27, 1607]. The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ
follow in these words: The Borough of Usk. The hundred with the court baron of the
right honorable William, earl of Pembroke at Usk held November 4
in the 4th year of the reign of the Lord James by the grace of God
king of England, France, and Ireland and the 40th of Scotland
[November 4, 1606] before John Gilles gentleman provost there. At this court comes Thomas Reynoldes alderman and Howell
Kenvyn in their proper persons and complain against Robert
William executor of the testament of Morgan Hughes in a plea of
trespass on the case on a demand of 60s for this, viz., that, whereas
the abovesaid Morgan in his life, scilt., May 1 in the 3rd year of the
reign of the said now lord king of England etc., at Usk within the
jurisdiction of this court undertook on himself and faithfully
promised to pay and content to the same Thomas and Howell the
abovesaid 60s when he should be required thereof, nevertheless the
same Morgan in his life and the abovesaid Robert after the death of
the same Morgan although often required has not yet rendered the
abovesaid 60s to the aforementioned Thomas and Howell or either
of them but wholly to this time refused to render them to him and
still refuses, wherefore they say that they are worse off and have
damages to the value of 60s, and thereof they produce suit etc. And the abovesaid Robert in his proper person comes and
defends force and injury when etc., and he says that the abovesaid
Morgan in his life did not undertake to pay and content the
aforementioned Thomas and Howell the abovesaid 60s in the
manner and form as the abovesaid Thomas and Howell above
alleged. And of this he puts himself on the countryside. And the
abovesaid Thomas and Howell similarly. Therefore it is ordered to the bailiffs there that they make to
come there at the next court to be held there then 6 men of the
borough abovesaid by whom etc., and who neither etc., to
recognize etc., because both etc. At which certain court held at Usk abovesaid, scilt., March 17 in
the abovesaid 4th year [March 17, 1607] come the abovesaid
bailiffs, viz., Thomas Edwardes and Edmund Reynoldes, and they
returned the abovesaid precept served and executed in all things,
scilt., a panel of the names of the jurors, viz., Walter Phillipe,
Richard Thomas, Walter Davids, John Rees, Edward Lewis, and
Edward Phillipe, who, chosen, tried, and sworn to tell the truth
concerning the premisses, say on their oath that the abovesaid
Morgan in his life undertook on himself and faithfully promised to
pay and content to the aforementioned Thomas and Howell the
abovesaid 60s in the manner and form as the abovesaid Thomas
and Howell [IMG 0072] alleged above. And they assess the
damages of the same Thomas and Howell by occasion of the
detention of the abovesaid debt at 4d and for their outlays and costs
put out on their suit in this part at 2d, so in all 6d. Therefore it is
considered that the abovesaid Thomas and Howell recover against
the aforementioned Robert the abovesaid 60s and their damages by
occasion set out above at 6d adjudicated to the same Thomas and
Howell by their by this court, and the abovesaid Robert in mercy. Afterwards on Thursday next after the morrow of Martinmas then next
following before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid
Robert in his proper person. And he says that in the record and process
abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment
manifestly it was erred in this, viz., that no consideration is expressed in the abovesaid narration to
move the abovesaid Morgan Hughes testator in his life to make the
abovesaid undertaking, therefore it is manifestly erred. Moreover in the record and process abovesaid and also in the
rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred
because it is not expressed in the abovesaid narration that any
goods or chattels that were the abovesaid Morgan’s at the time of
his death as assets ever came to the hands of the abovesaid Robert
by the death of the abovesaid Morgan, and for the uncertainty
thereof it is similarly manifestly erred. And finally in the record and process abovesaid and also in the
rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred in this,
viz., because at the trial of the abovesaid issue joined between the
abovesaid parties it was ordered to the bailiffs of the town or
borough abovesaid that they make to come 6 men of the abovesaid
borough by whom etc., without mentioning any custom there to
make to come 6 men to try an issue as it ought to be, because by
the common law of this realm of England no issue can be tried by a
lesser number of jurors than by 12 jurors. Therefore similarly it is
erred. And he seeks the said lord king’s writ to warn the aforementioned
Thomas and Howell 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 of Monmouthshire that by prudent etc., he should make it
known to the aforementioned Thomas and Howell that they be before the
lord king on the Octaves of Hilary wherever etc., to hear the record and
process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the
aforementioned Robert etc.
0071,
0072