World History

13.

Typical Pleas of the Crown Before the Justices Itinerant in Gloucestershire.

1221. (Nos. 52, 213, 228, 229, 326, and 435 in Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, edited by F. W. Maitland. Latin originals. Translations by the editor.)

a. Marinus of Winchcomb, who was charged with the death of a certain man in the house of his father, gives two marks to have an inquisition as to whether or not he is guilty; Matthew Cook, Odo of Dumbleton, and Joseph de Marsh are accepted as pledges.

The jurors of Winchcomb and of Kiftsgate and of Gretston say definitely that he is not guilty, and hence he is quit.¹

b. William de Fons and Alexander his son were suspected of the death of a certain merchant, who was lodged in the house of said William, and who was seen to be lodged there and who never came out alive; and they come and deny it all but refuse to put themselves upon their country.¹ The jurors say that Alexander and Agnes his mother killed said merchant, and carried him out, and had from him fifteen marks and a belt, and his [Alexander’] father was consenting; and the townships of Charlton, Leckhampton, and Ham say the same, and they well know that he was lodged there and that he was carried out dead. Let William be kept in gaol. Let him be committed to twelve legal men by order of the sheriff, and let the others remain in gaol.²

c. William Bot and Hugelot his son have been arrested on the indictment of twelve jurors because of their reception of John Bot, brother of said William, a fugitive on account of sheep which he stole, and likewise because of their reception of a certain other thief who was hung, and also for other malefactions of which said jurors suspect said William and Hugelot. And they come before the justices and deny the reception and society of the thief, and their consent, and place themselves upon the verdict of the twelve jurors and upon their country for good or bad.

The jurors say definitely that said William received said John after that flight, and they well know that he was to have his share from the thefts of said John. They say also that he received Walter de Hedworth the thief who was hung after Roger Goman, father of said Walter, fled from him on account of the theft. And because Hugelot, son of said William, was living with him [William] and was of his household, the jurors say that he also was a party to that reception and the other malefactions. And the townships of Horsley, Wood-chester, Rodmarton, and Tetbury say the same, and therefore it is considered that they be hung.

d. William of Lechlade was arrested upon the indictment of twelve jurors for the theft of some sheep that had been stolen. And he came before the justices and refused to put himself upon a jury. And they [the twelve jurors] say upon oath that they believe him to be the thief of sheep that were stolen at Bibury, but they do not know the names of those whose sheep they were; and the townships of Lechlade, Southrop, Hathrop, and Kempsford [say the same, and therefore let him be kept in custody].¹

e. Malefactors came to the house of William de Hull of Elniton, and killed said William and carried off his goods; Reginald Cook and Geoffrey Bochan, arrested for that death, come before the justices and deny it all and put themselves on the verdict of twelve jurors and the townships. Who all come and say that they do not suspect them nor any particular man; and therefore let them go quit thereof.

f. Henry Piterich of Whaddon was held in the castle of the lord king at Gloucester for stolen sheep whereof he was accused; and afterward at the lord king’ command by writ he was let out on bail until the coming of the justices; and then comes said Henry and denies the theft, etc.; but he does not wish to put himself upon the verdict of the twelve jurors, and therefore let him be kept in custody.

¹ "The jurors of the borough of Winchcomb say that Marinus is accused of homicide; he pays two marks to have an inquisition as to his guilt or innocence: then the jurors of two neighboring hundreds are called in and all say distinctly that he is not guilty. He buys the privilege of being tried by twenty-four jurors in addition to the twelve who have presented the matter."—MAITLAND.

¹ That is, accept trial by jury.

² "This is the clearest case there is on this roll against trying, or rather against punishing, those who do not submit themselves to trial. Apparently William, Alexander, and Agnes have as full a trial as any accused person ever has. The jurors and the three townships declare them guilty; but Alexander and Agnes merely remain in gaol, while William is, I think, let out on bail, though this last fact is left somewhat obscure."—MAITLAND. Another manuscript recording this same case has for its last clause (referring to Alexander and Agnes), "And because they did not place themselves upon their country let them be kept in gaol."

¹ These last words are found in a badly mutilated manuscript. "Seemingly another case, in which a man is tried and found guilty by the jurors and four townships, but is merely left in custody because he has not put himself on his country. It is to be noticed, however, that the jurors do not know to whom the sheep belonged. In this case it seems clear that the jurors, who say on their oath that they know William to be a thief, are the same jurors upon whose indictment he was captured."—MAITLAND.