Alexander Tayler and John Powlton

     New Woodstock attorneys: Simon Jeames, Henry Rudgate

     Error plaintiff's king's bench attorney: Lawrence Gibson

The lord king sent to the mayor and community of his borough of New Woodstock in the county of Oxfordshire 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 mayor and community of his borough of New Woodstock in the county of Oxfordshire, greeting. 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 borough without our writ according to the custom of the same borough between Alexander Tayler and John Powlton concerning a debt of £10 that the same Alexander exacts from the aforementioned John as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same John 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 send distinctly and openly the abovesaid record and process with everything touching them to us under your seals, and this writ, so that we have them at Michaelmas month wherever we shall then be in England, so that, the abovesaid record and process having been inspected, we may make to be done 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 August 1 in the 5^th year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland and the 41^st of Scotland [August 1, 1607]. Ravenscrofte.

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

The Borough of New Woodstock in the County of Oxfordshire. At the lord king’s “portmouth” court of the abovesaid borough held there on April 13 in the 5^th year of the reign of our Lord James now king of England and the 40^th of Scotland [April 13, 1607] before William Meatcalfe mayor of the same borough, Alexander Tayler complained against John Powlton concerning a plea of debt on a demand of £10. And there are pledges to prosecute: John Doo and Richard Roo. And the said defendant in the same court appeared in his proper person. And the abovesaid plaintiff by Simon Jeames his attorney put his declaration following in these words:

The Borough of New Woodstock. John Powlton was attached to answer Alexander Tayler concerning a plea that he render to him £10 that he owes him and unjustly detains. And whereof the same Alexander by Simon Jeames his attorney says that, whereas the abovesaid John Powlton on May 8 in the 3^rd year of the reign of our Lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland and the 38^th of Scotland, defender of the faith etc., at the borough of New Woodstock and within the jurisdiction of this court by his certain obligatory writing granted that he was bound to the aforementioned Alexander in the abovesaid £10 to be paid to the same Alexander when he should be asked thereof, nevertheless the abovesaid John Powlton although often asked has not yet rendered the abovesaid £10 to the aforementioned Alexander but up to now has refused to render them to him and still refuses. And thereof he produces suit. And he proffers here in court the abovesaid writing that attests the abovesaid debt in the abovesaid form, the date of which is on the day and year abovesaid, pledges to prosecute: John Doo and Richard Roo.

And the said defendant similarly in his proper person seeks thereof a copy, and it is granted to him etc.

And at the said lord king’s “portmouth” court held there on April 26 abovesaid [April 26, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor the said defendant in his proper person sought a day peremptory and to answer the aforementioned Alexander Taylor in the plea of his debt, etc.

At the said lord king’s “portmouth” court held there on May 11 in the abovesaid year [May 11, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor the said defendant put in his response in these words following:

And the abovesaid John Powlton by Henry Rudgate his attorney comes and defends force and injury when etc., and says that he ought not be burdened of the abovesaid debt by virtue of the abovesaid writing, because he says that the abovesaid writing is not his deed, and of this he put himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid Alexander Taylor similarly etc. Therefore etc.

And thereon the abovesaid Alexander Taylor by his abovesaid attorney seeks the said lord king’s writ of venire facias for jurors to be directed to the serjeants at mace of the same borough returnable in the next court; it is granted etc. [IMG 0127]

At the said lord king’s “portmouth” court held there on May 18 in the abovesaid year before the aforementioned mayor, the serjeants at mace of the abovesaid borough returned the abovesaid writ of venire facias executed and the names of the jurors, who, solemnly exacted, did not come. There a writ of habeas corpus juratorum is granted to be directed to the serjeants at mace of the same borough returnable in the next court.

At the said lord king’s “portmouth” court of the abovesaid borough held there on June 1 in the abovesaid 5^th year before the aforementioned mayor, the serjeants at mace of the abovesaid borough returned the writ of habeas corpus juratorum executed, who, sworn, impaneled, exacted, similarly came, and, chosen, tried, and sworn to tell the truth concerning the premisses, say on their oath that the abovesaid writing is the deed of the aforementioned John Powlton. And they assess the damages of the same Alexander Tayler by occasion of the detention of the abovesaid debt beyond his outlays and costs put out by him on his suit in this part at 2d, and for his outlays and costs abovesaid at 1d.

At the said lord king’s “portmouth” court held there on June 15 in the abovesaid 5^th year [June 15, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, because the court wants to be advised on the debt and verdict abovesaid before it renders judgment thereof, day is given to the abovesaid parties in the next court to hear their judgment thereof etc.

At the said lord king’s “portmouth” court held there on June 29 in the abovesaid 5^th year [June 29, 1607] before the aforementioned mayor, it was considered by the court that the abovesaid Alexander Tayler recover against the said John Powlton both the abovesaid £10 for the abovesaid debt and 35s1d for his outlays and costs put out in this part, and 2d for his damages for detention of the abovesaid debt. Therefore etc.

In testimony of this matter I the aforementioned William Metcalfe mayor of the borough of New Woodstock abovesaid have affixed the seal of my office, given October 12 in the 5^th year of the reign of our Lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., and the 41^st of Scotland, the year of the lord 1607.

Afterwards, on Saturday next after the Octaves of St. Hilary this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid John Powlton by Lawrence Gibson his attorney. And immediately he says that in the record and process abovesaid as well as in the rendering of judgment it was manifestly erred in this, viz.,

that it does not appear by the abovesaid record by what right the abovesaid “portmouth” court of the abovesaid borough was held whether by prescription or by charter of the lord king or of any of his predecessors, as it ought to appear by law.

Likewise, it was erred in this that there was no continuation of the abovesaid plea in the abovesaid record from the abovesaid court held on the abovesaid April 13 in the abovesaid 5^th year [April 13, 1607], by which that plea was totally discontinued as above it appears of record, nor by the same record does it appear whether the abovesaid court held on the same April 26 was the next court held there after the abovesaid court held on April 13 or not.

Moreover it was erred in this that at the abovesaid court held on the abovesaid June 1 in the abovesaid 5^th year at which court the abovesaid issue joined between the parties abovesaid was tried, no mention was made that the abovesaid parties between whom that issue was joined appeared at the same court nor that they or either of them otherwise had day given to them to be there for the trial of that issue, and thus that trial and the verdict thereof are void and erroneous in law.

And finally it was erred in this that no mention was made in the abovesaid record of any judgment given that the defendant be taken as by the law of the land it ought to be rendered in suchlike judgment that the defendant should be taken, and thus the same John says that in the record and process abovesaid as well as in the rendering of judgment manifestly it was erred.

And the same John seeks the lord king’s writ to warn the aforementioned Alexander that he be before the lord king to hear the record and process abovesaid. And it is granted etc., whereby it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., he make known to the aforementioned Alexander [IMG 1708] that he be before the lord king on the Octaves of the Purification of Blessed Mary wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned John etc.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid John by his abovesaid attorney. And the sheriff did not send the writ thereof. And thereon the abovesaid Alexander by William Baylie his attorney similarly comes. Thereon the abovesaid John as before says that in the record and process abovesaid as well as in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred by alleging the abovesaid errors alleged above by him. And he seeks that the abovesaid judgment on account of those errors and others found in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing and that the same Alexander rejoin to those errors, and that the court here proceed to the examination both of the abovesaid record and process and of the abovesaid errors. And the abovesaid Alexander says nothing to the abovesaid errors. Therefore the abovesaid John as before seeks that the lord king’s court here proceed to the examination both of the abovesaid record and process and of the matters abovesaid above assigned for error. But because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised to render its judgment of and on the premisses, day thereof is given to the abovesaid parties before the lord king until the quindene of Easter wherever etc., to hear their judgment thereof, because the court of the lord king here thereof not yet etc.