Robert of Linton

Curia Regis Rolls 1225-1226    p297

Curia Regis Roll 86  m 2

Trinity Term, 8 Henry III (1224)

1483

Ebor’, -Robertus de Percy optulit se iiij. die versus Henricum de Percy Hugonem de Lillay Ricardum de Littlington’ Robertum de Plumton’ Matheum de Bram, Nigellum Picernam, Reinbaldum de Montibus Baldewinum de Stoche  Robertum de Beringrant Willelmum Pincewar’ Robertum de Linton’ Willelmum filium Roberti de placito roberie et pacis etc.
Et nullas coram venit etc; et attachiati fuerunt primo per Alam de Burhill’ Rannulfum Har’ Alanum de Munketon’ Ricardum filium Walteri Jordanum de Lutington’ Henricum de Abbarford’ Thomam filium Radulfi de Plumton’ Maugerum de Plumton’ Walterum filium Alani de Folifet Nicholaum de Duneford’ Adam ad Moram Thomam filium Wimundi de Delinton’ Johannem filium Roberti de Stache Alanum filium Godwini Joscelinum de Okinton’ Maugerum Pistorem Thomam filium Hugonis Jordanum de Hwatevill’ Rogerum Blundum Thomam le Mariner Willelmum filium Roberti de Eboraco, et secundo per Osbertum de Brunneby Josep de Heyton’ Ricardum le Franceis Gilebertum filium Normani Robertum Karle Adam Prepositum de eadem villa (sic) Willelmum de Stiveton’ Willelmum de Plumton’ Willelmum filium Mathei Walterum filium Mathei Ricardum Dagun Johannem de Ayketon’ Gilbertum filium Toraudi Alanum filium Godwini Willelmum le Goiz Thomam le Lardeiner Ricardum de Montecanis’ Lucam de Bridlington’ Willelmum de Staxton’ Willelmum Prepositum de Lutone Jordanum de Sikelinghal’ Robertum filium Alani Johannem de Aquila et Willelmum Flur Ricardum de Munceus. Et ideo omnes plegii in misericordia; et vicecomes habeat corpora omnium predictorum apellatorum in octabis sancti Michaelis etc., et similiter Henrici de Capella Hugonis de Safford’ Hugonis de Wavill’ Stephani de Mara Oliveri de Brinkel’ et Roberti filii Willelmi ad respondendum de eodem etc.
Idem Robertus optulit se quarto versus Willelmum de Percy de placito manerii de Lalton cum pertinenciis, quod idem Willelmus clamat versus eum etc; et Willelmus non venit etc., et fuit petens. Et ideo Robertus inde sine die: et Willelmus et plegii sui de prosequendo in misericordia, scilicet Thomas le Gardiner de Tattecastr’ et Willelmus le Grant de Torneton’.

 

Select Cases of Procedure without writ under Henry III

Seldon Society Vol 60  1941

Plaints in the King’s Court.

1

Pleas at Westminster of Michaelmas Term in the Eighth year of the reign of Henry III (1224)

Further Pleas of the Octave of Michaelmas.

Yorkshire.

Robert de Percy complains that on Friday after last Candlemas, (9 February 1224), there came to his mill at Hornington William de Percy, with his force and horses and arms, armed, that is to say, with a hauberk and other weapons, and with banners unfurled and pennons and barded horses. And, in time of the king’s peace and feloniously, he, along with a crowd of armed men, wickedly broke down his mill and pulled out all the timber. And he took one of his grindstones away in a boat, and the other fell in to the water as they were trying to put it into the boat, and afterwards they smashed it with iron hammers. And they broke open his chests and carried them away, as also the corn and hay and timber from his mill. And thereupon came Jordan of Stokes, serjeant of that township, and raised the cry, and asked that the king’s peace should be kept. And William and his men seized him, beat him evilly and shamefully treated him and robbed him of his cloak and a sword and a felt hat. And Jordan offers to prove by battle against William, as the court shall award, that he did this wickedly and feloniously and in the time of the king’s peace. And if this does not suffice, Robert offers the king three marks to have an inquest thereon.
Walter of Boroughbridge, Robert’s servant, appeals Henry de Percy of this, that, insomuch as he came to the hue raised for that robbery, Henry and others seized him and beat him evilly, without drawing blood, and shamefully treated him and robbed him of an axe with which they beat him. And he offers to prove by battle, as the court shall award, that he did this wickedly and feloniously.
William of Holme, Robert’s servant, appeals Walter de Percy of this, that he was present with wicked and felonious intent at the robbery of the mill and beat him him evilly and robbed him of a cloak of grising. And he offers to prove by battle that he did this wickedly and feloniously.
In the same way as William, Henry le Noreis, Robert’s servant, appeals Jordan le Estre of this, that he was present with wicked and felonious intent at the robbery, with horses and arms, and robbed him of a scapular of burel and beat him. And he offers to prove by battle that he wickedly etc.
And William and Henry, Walter and Jordan come and deny the breach of the king’s peace, the felony and robbery and whatever is against the king’s peace. And they say that they have no day against the appellors; nor did the latter ever appeal them either in county court or elsewhere; nor are the appellors mentioned in the writ with the exception of Robert, who is present and says nothing against them. Therefore they refuse to answer them, unless the court shall so award, because they have been attached through Robert’s appeal and not that of his men.
And Robert says that when the robbery was committed, he was, in fact, lying ill and as soon as he had recovered from his illness, he came to the king and, on behalf of himself and his men, he complained to him about the robbery. And so it is that his men are suing against them. And, if this plaint does not suffice, and the court shall award that he can have an appeal against them, although by reason of his illness he did not see the robbery, he is ready, as one who heard about it but did not see it, to prove it by battle, as the court shall award.
And William and the others ask that it should be allowed in their favour that Robert acknowledges that he did not see what was done. And therefore it is awarded that there is no appeal, and that the appellees are not to make answer to the writ. And so William and the others are to be acquited thereof, and Robert is to be amerced’.

 

Curia Regis Roll 90  Adhuc de Quindena   Trinity 1225

m9 (Curia Regis Rolls 1225-1226 p132)

655
‘Ebor.- Willelmus de Percy per attoratum suum optulit se quarto die versus Adam de Novo Mercato et Johannem de Birkin Willelmum de Tameton’ et Willelmum Britonem, quos dominus rex constitut justiciarios ad assisam nove disseisine capiendam inter predictum Willelmum querentum et Robertum de Percy de quodam stagno levato in Hornington’, de placito quod fecerent recordum de assisa illa secundum quod coram eis capta fuit, et versus omnes recognitores ejusdem assise qui sacramentum fecerent de placito quod certicarent justiciarios de sacramento suo quod inde fecerent etc., unde predictus Willelmus dicit quod numquam fuit ibi aliquod stagnum levatum vel exaltum nisi per predictum Robertum, qui illud levavit ad nocumentum liberi tenementi ejusdem Willelmi in Tatecastr’ etc., et versus eundem Robertum de placito quod audiret illud recordum. Et justiciarii non venerunt etc. nec recognitores etc., nec Robertus venit etc.; et plures fecerunt defaltas. Et ideo mandatum est vicecomiti quod habeat predictos justiciarios coram justiciaris ad primam assisam cum in partes illas venerint ad assisas nove disseisine capiendas et ad gaolas deliberandas et faciendum recordum illud et quod habeat corpora predictorum ad certicandem eosdem justiciarios et corpus predicti Roberti ad audiendum recordum illud’.