The assize comes to recognise if Thomas de Sumerdeby and many others disseised Roger Gladewine of his free tenement in Spitelgate after etc.,[143] whereof he complains that they disseised him of 2½ acres and a toft.
And Thomas and the others come and say that the same Roger is a villein and the tenement whereof view is made is villeinage, and thereof they put themselves on a jury. And Roger says that he is a free man and the tenement is free, and that his ancestors were free men and held freely, and thereof he puts himself on a jury.
The jurors say that the aforesaid Roger holds his tenement in the same town by 2s. a year and by two works in autumn at his lord's food, and he shall give two hens at Christmas and eat with his lord. And questioned if he or any of his ancestors had given merchet for marrying his daughter, they say, No. Questioned if he had ever been tallaged, they say, No. And the aforesaid Thomas, questioned if others of his fee do other villein services, he says that others do all manner of villein services. And because he does no service save the aforesaid money payment and the services named, nor gives merchet for a daughter, nor is tallaged, therefore it is awarded that he held freely and that he recover his seisin, and Thomas and the others are in mercy.
[143] sc. The King's last return from Brittany.
19. A Villein Pleads Villeinage on One Occasion And Denies It on Another [Bracton's Note-Book, III, 364, No. 1411], 1220.
Hamelin son of Ralph was attached to answer Hugh de Gundevill wherefore he brought an assize of novel disseisin against the aforesaid Hugh, his lord, touching a tenement in Pinpre, inasmuch as he is a villein and acknowledged himself to be the villein of the aforesaid Hugh's father in the time of the lord King John, etc. before the justices in eyre at Sherborne, as the same Hugh says, and thereon shows that Simon de Patteshull, Eustace de Faucumberge and others their fellows were then justices. And that Thomas acknowledged himself to be his father's villein, as is aforesaid, he puts himself on the record of the court and on the rolls, etc.
And Hamelin comes and denies that he is a villein or ever acknowledged himself to be a villein in the court of the lord the King, as Hugh says, and thereof puts himself in like manner on the record of the court. But he will speak the truth. He says that at that time, to wit, in the eyre of the justices, he held certain land in villeinage which he had bought, and then acknowledged that the land was villeinage, and specifically denies that he ever acknowledged himself to be a villein. The rolls of the eyre are searched, and there it is recorded that one Osbert Crede brought an assize of mort d'ancestor in respect of the death of Henry his brother against Hamelin touching a carucate of land with the appurtenances in Pinpre, in such wise that Hamelin answered against the assize that it ought not to proceed because he could not gain or lose that land, because he was the villein of Hugh de Gundevill, father of the aforesaid Hugh. And this was found in many rolls, and when Hamelin should have had his judgment, he absented himself and withdrew without licence, whereupon the sheriff was ordered to have his body on such a day, etc., to hear his judgment thereof, etc. And on that day he came not, and the sheriff reported that he had withdrawn himself and could not be found, wherefore the sheriff was ordered to take the whole of Hamelin's land into the hand of the lord the King, and to keep it safely, etc., because Hamelin withdrew himself and would not stand to right touching Hugh's complaint of him, and to certify the justices of what he should do thereof on such a day etc. On that day Hamelin came not and the sheriff reported that he had taken his land into the hand of the lord the King.
And because the court records that Hamelin acknowledged himself to be a villein, and Hugh afterwards by the aforesaid assize of novel disseisin lost his land, it is decided that Hugh recover seisin of that land whereon the assize was taken, and that he have Hamelin as his villein convicted, and that the assize of novel disseisin which was taken thereof be held void, and that Hugh be quit of the mercy wherein he was put for that disseisin. And the sheriff is ordered to make diligent enquiry who were the jurors of that assize and to have them on such a day, etc., to hear the judgment on them for the oath which they made thereof. And if Hamelin held any tenement of Hugh, let Hugh do therewith as with his own, etc.
20. An Assize Allowed to a Villein [Bracton's Note-Book, III, 527, No. 1681], 1225.
The justices in eyre in the county of Essex were ordered to take a grand assize between Thomas of Woodford, claimant, and John de la Hille, tenant, of a virgate and a half of land with the appurtenances in Woodford. And the said John and Thomas came before the justices at Chelmsford and offered themselves, and the bailiff of the Abbot of Waltham came and said both claimant and tenant were villeins, and the tenement was the Abbot's villeinage and therefore the assize thereof ought not to proceed. He was questioned by the tenant whether the latter was a villein or not, and he said Yes, asserting that the said tenement was the Abbot's villeinage.
And Thomas comes [and says] that this ought not to hurt him, because when he impleaded the aforesaid John in the court of the lord Abbot by writ of the lord the King, no mention was made by the Abbot nor by John that the tenement was villeinage nor that John was a villein, but because the Abbot failed to do him right in his court, Thomas went to the county court and complained in the county court that the lord Abbot had failed to do him right in his court, and the Abbot, summoned hereon, came not, and the suit proceeded so far in the county court that the tenant asked and obtained view of the land. Afterwards he put himself on a grand assize as to which of the two had greater right in the aforesaid land without any challenge of villeinage being made on the part of the Abbot or of John. And this he sought to be allowed him.
And the Abbot's bailiff comes and denies the whole, as the court of the lord the King should award. And he said that unknown to the Abbot and without his court failing to do Thomas right, the suit was taken away to the county court, and this he asked to be allowed him. And owing to the doubt a day was given to the parties at Westminster, etc. And because the Abbot permitted John to be impleaded in his court first and in the county court afterwards until he put himself on a grand assize, the Abbot not having lodged the claim which he should have made, it is awarded that the assize proceed.
21. A Freeman Holding in Villeinage [Bracton's Note-Book, II, 233, No. 281], 1228.
William de Bissopestun, William de Ludington and Geoffrey de Cherlescote, knights, whom the lord the King appointed as justices to take an assize of novel disseisin which Thomas son of Adam arraigned against Ralph, Prior of Stiffleppe, and many others, of a tenement in Aldrestun, [were summoned] to make a record of that assize before the justices at Westminster, and to certify the same justices how far the process in the same assize was carried, and the same Thomas was summoned to hear that record. And William and Geoffrey come and record that the assize came to recognise before them if the aforesaid Prior and Thomas son of Payn and Gilbert son of Henry [and] Osmar le Bracur unjustly and without a judgment and after the last, etc., disseised the aforesaid Thomas son of Adam of his free tenement in Aldredestun. And the Prior came before them, and, being asked if he wished to say anything against the assize, said that the assize ought not to be made thereof, because the same tenement was his villeinage, and the same Thomas was his villein and owed villein customs as did all others of the aforesaid manor, such as ploughings and reapings, and he could not marry his daughter as a freeman could.
And Thomas acknowledged that he owed certain customs at the Prior's food, and that he owed him a rent and a fixed fine for his daughter, and said that he was a free man and held freely of the Prior, and thereof put himself on a jury. And hereon a jury was taken and the jurors said that they (the aforesaid Prior and others) disseised him of his free tenement, and after the term,[144] and the damage was taxed and estimated at two marks.
And the Prior says that in part their record is correct, but they say too little, because the jurors said
