| Description (Repository) |
75. William Asshebof merchant went to the house of Master Adam de Lynton in the ward of Richard de Ewell [Farringdon ward] to sell silk to Adam's wife Maud. Master Adam and his servant William le Waleys appeared and William Assheboefl- and Maud hid in a room out of fright; Adam and his servant seeing this sought them out and when they found William they at once attacked him, Adam striking him with a sword so that he died forthwith. Adam and his servant William fled and are suspected, so let them be exacted and outlawed according to the custom of the City. Adam's chattels *20 marks (deodandum [sic]) and a house, year and waste worth *2 marks and the issues of the intervening period *38 marks for which the sheriffs are to answer. William had no chattels, but was harboured in the ward outside frankpledge, so the whole ward is in mercy (pro franco plegio).
Because the chamberlain and sheriffs held no enquiry about the chattels, to judgment on them. Because the mayor and aldermen later testify that Maud and her maid Agnes were arrested and delivered2 before the justices at Newgate and have now died, nothing from them. The sheriff is ordered to take the house into the king's hand. Richard le Parchominer the second neighbour does not come and is not suspected. He was attached by John of Pelham and Gervase of the same. So they are in *mercy. John de Bere and Philip le Pestour, two neighbours, have died, so nothing from them. Walter de Herteford, the fourth neighbour, comes and is not suspected, so he is quit. Afterwards the mayor and aldermen testify that the master of the Temple in England took the chattels without warrant and that Adam returned to the master's house in London and was his clerk; he was harboured there for a long time after the crime. Therefore to judgment on the said master. [cf. 596]
Afterwards the mayor and sheriffs of London were ordered by Master Roger de Seyton on the command of the king and his council to enquire whether the rents and tenements of Master Adam in the City of London were escheats of the king or not; the form of the inquisition is as follows: Inquisition held on Friday after the feast of St. Barnabas the Apostle 5 Edward I [18 June 1277] before Gregory de Roqesley mayor of London on the precept of Master Roger de Seyton and his fellow justices last on eyre in the City of London; to enquire whether the rents and tenements which once belonged to Master Adam de Lynton now deceased, at one time accused of the death of William de Assibhof merchant, are escheats of the king or not, by the following jurors: William de Assyndon, John de Vaus goldsmith, Henry le Ferur, John le Kyng, John de Horton, Walter the Marshal, Roger the Cook, Walter de St. Salvator, John de Chestehunt, Henry the Cook, William de Notyngham and Roger le Stiwr. The [jurors] say in the faith in which they are bound to the king that William de Assebof was killed in the house of Master Adam, who fled with his servant William le Waleys ; they were indicted and William at once fled overseas and was never afterwards seen in England, as far as they know; Master Adam absconded and stayed for some time with the Templars at the New Temple London, whose clerk he was, until Sir Henry de Wengham, then dean of St. Martin le Grand London and king's chancellor, procured for him a grant of the king's peace; the king granted him his peace3 and remitted his suit and no one else proceeded against him; inasmuch as he had a royal charter and his peace was then publicly proclaimed throughout the whole City, he was restored to his rents and tenements and held them peaceably for two years after the proclamation; afterwards, in the zeal which he felt towards the dean and chapter of St. Martin's, he enfeoffed the said dean, chapter and church of the rents and tenements and from then on they were in full and peaceful seisin; thus for two years before the enfeoffment and for ten years after, Master Adam continually enjoyed the king's peace in the City, and there he died; he was never convicted of this felony or any other, so the jury say that his rents and tenements are not and ought not to be escheats of the king, because they were restored to Adam with his chattels after the proclamation of his peace on the king's command to the sheriffs of London.4
Nota 32. Quod major et vicecomites inquirant de escaetis [cf. 524 no. 32].
1. Macelof deleted; Assheboef interlined.
2. C.P.R. 1247-58, 547, 3 Apr. 1257.
3. For pardon at the instance of Conrad, archbishop of Cologne, see C.P .R. 1247-58, 548, 8 Apr. 1257.
4. For an order permitting the dean and chapter to hold the rents and tenements, see C.C.R. 1272-9, 437, 17 Jan. 1278. The order was made because the king had learned by the record of Master Roger de Seyton that the rents and tenements, whereof Adam in his lifetime had enfeoffed the dean and chapter, were not the king's escheats because Adam was never convicted of the said felony. |