GODFREY v GODFREY (1470)

[There are three different reports of this case in Law French, the first a somewhat more detailed description of the proceeding and the other two little more than a brief synopsis of the legal points decided.  English translations follow.  The first report records the discussion of the judges about how properly to plead the case, an issue resolved at the very end.  Note that these reports, presumably written by three different people, appear to reflect somewhat different varieties of French, or at least, have divergent spellings of certain French words.
    Finally, the record of the case (prepared by the court clerk) is presented in the Latin original, followed by an English translation.  The parties both ”put themselves upon the country“ (ask for a jury trial), and the final sentence of the record directs the sheriff to assemble a jury]
 

First report.
 

En transgressio des herbez puez etc. le defendaunt dit qe le lieu ou etc. est vn close appelle D. etc., le qel close le pleintiff et toutz cex qe estat en le close etc. de temps dount etc. ount use dencloser mesme le close etc. et dit qun haut chemyn le roy de tiel ville tanqe a tiel etc. est aionaunt a mesme le close en qell chemyn lez lieges le roy ount use etc. de chacer etc. et dit qil al temps de transgressio etc. chaca lez auerz en le dit chemyn et le close fuit ouert et ils entrent pur defaut de closure et le defendaunt ex freshment ensuya et enchaca etc.; iugement si, etc.

Danby a Catesby Si vous enchasez vostres bests par le chemyn le roy a qell chemyn ma terre qe est seme est aionaunt, et vostre auerz entrent en mez blez etc. ne sera vous puny pour cest transgressio?

Moille. Si lez auerz targent la pur ascun temps vous sera.

Danby. Sil targent ou nemye, le rendra damages pur le temps, quod fuit concessum.

Litilton. Il est reason la qar vous nestes tenuz dencloser vostre terre, issint il est al perell cesty qe chace etc. mez autrement est icy etc. comme si iay vn close aionaunt a vn graund wast en qe hommez ount comen en qell close ieo et cex qe estate ieo ay en celle ount use dencloser de temps etc., si le close gist ouert et lez auerz de cex qe ount comen qe fuerent mys en le comen viegnent en ma close ieo nauera etc. qar ils ount title de mitter ex en las comen etc. et ieo sue tenuz dencloser etc. et issint icy, qar auxi graunde liberte ad le defendaunt en le chemyn le roy comme le communer ad en le wast.

Danby. Le defendaunt nad faire forqe en le chemyn, issint le close est rien a luy etc. Et, sir, si homme achat bestes en le markett et chace ex par le stret et ils entrent en man meason, poet il justifier ceo etc.?

Choke. Non, sir, qar vous nestes tenuz de clauder vostre huys.

Moille. Il est diuersite entre vn privat chemyn et le chemyn le roy etc. qar si vn ad vn close le qell il ad use dencloser de temps etc., aionaunt a qell close iqy vn chemyn de chacer mees auerz a tiel lieu etc., en ceo case si le close gist ouert et mees bestz enchaces entrent etc., il auera accion enuers moy etc., mez autrement est si lez betz vn autre qe nad title daler et chacer par cell chemyn entrent etc.; issint toutz qe ount interesse en le chemyn auerount auauntage del usage dencloser etc., et en le chemyn le roy chescun ad interest, par qe en tiel case chescun auera auauntage del encloser etc. quod Choke concessit, et dit: si iay vn close parentre le close A. dun partie et le close B. dautre partie etc. et qe iay use de closer mon close de temps etc. en ce case si mon close gist ouert et nient close etc. et lez bests aveignent en mon close ieo nauera accion enuers luy qar cest mon defaut, mez sis passent par mon close et entrent en le close B . il auera accion enuers A., et A. sera mys a son bref de curia claudenda vers moy etc.

Et puis Pigott dit par protestation, nient tenuz de closer ut supra; et puis pleintiff dit qil puea lez harbez etc. de son tort demesne oue cez bests sanz ce qil entra defaut de closure; prist etc. Et le court dit qe ce ne sera issue mez il couient maintener qil fuit sufficientment enclose etc.

Pigott. Il dit qils entrent par defaut de closure par qe de trauers ce est le pluys conuenient issue etc. qar si ieo die qe fuit sufficientement enclose ieo ne mete pas oue luy.

Et puis fuit tenuz qe lez defendauntz couient dire en son barre qils entrent par defaut de sufficient closure et sic fecit, et lautre dit qe fuit sufficientment close; prist, et alii e contra.
 
 

Translation of first report:
 

In trespass of herbage destroyed etc. the defendant says that the place where etc., is a close called D. etc., which close the plaintiff and all those whose estate he has, from time etc. of which etc. have been used to inclose etc.; and he says that a highway of the king from such a vill to such a vill is adjoining the said close, in which highway the liege subjects of the king have been used etc. to drive etc. and he says that at the time of the trespass etc he drove the beasts in the said way, and the close was open, and they entered through default of inclosure, and the defendant pursued them quickly, and drove them out; judgment if etc.

DANBY C.J. to Catesby. If you drive your beasts by the king’s highway, to which highway my land that is sown is adjacent, and your beasts enter in my corn etc., will you not be punished for this trespass ?

MOYLE J. If the beasts delay there for any time, you will.

DANBY C.J. Whether they delay there or not, he will pay damages for the time they are there: which was conceded.

LITTLETON J. There is a reason in the case you put, for you are not held to inclose your land, and so the risk is taken by the one that drives the cattle etc.; but it is otherwise here etc.; as if I have a close adjoining a great waste in which men have common of pasture, which close I and those whose estate I have been used to inclose from time beyond memory, if such close lie open, and the beasts of those that have common in the waste which have been put on the common, come into my close, I shall have no action etc., because they are entitled to put them in the common etc., and I am held responsible to inclose etc.; and thus here, because the defendant has as great liberty in the king’s highway as the commoner has in the waste.

DANBY C.J. The defendant has to do with nothing except in the highway, and hence the close is nothing to him etc.; and sir, if a man buy beasts in the market and drive them along the street, and they enter in my house, can he justify this etc. ?

CHOKE J. No, sir, because you are not bound to inclose your house.

MOYLE J. There is a difference between a private way and the king’s highway etc., because if a man has a close which he has been accustomed to inclose from time etc., adjoining which close I have a way for driving my animals to such a place etc.; in this case if the close lie open and my beasts when they are being driven enter etc. the owner will have an action against me etc.; but otherwise is it if the beasts of another who has title of going and returning by that way enter etc.; thus all who have an interest in the highway will have the advantage of the usage of inclosing etc.; and in the king’s highway everyone has interest, wherefore in such case every one will have the advantage of inclosing etc. Which CHOKE J. conceded, and said: If I have a close between the close of A. on one side and the close of B. on the other etc., and if it happen that I have been accustomed to inclose my close from time beyond memory, in this case if my lose like open and the beasts of A. come into my close I shall have no action against A. because it is my fault; but if they pass through my close and enter the close of B. he, B., will have action against A., and A. will be put to his writ of curia claudenda against me.

And then Pygott said, by protestation: "not held to inclose as above"; and then the plaintiff said that he destroyed the herbage etc., his own tort, with the beast, without saying that he entered by default of inclosure; ready etc. And the court said that this will not be an issue, but that it is fitting for him to maintain that he was sufficiently inclosed etc.

Pyogtt. He says that they entered by default of inclosure, wherefore to traverse this is the most convenient issue etc.; because if I say that I was sufficiently inclosed I shall not meet with him.

And then it was held that the defendant should say in bar that they entered by default of sufficient inclosure, and so he did, and the other said that he was sufficiently inclosed, ready, and others the opposite.
 
 

Second Report:

Freshment sur eschape in comen des auers. Freshment sur eschape des auers.

Si homme ad vn close a D. ioynaunt al halt chimen in qell par defaut dencloser lez auerse qe sount chases par my de dit chimen eschapent lowner des auers poet justifier dentre fresment et eux reprender, mez sil terre adioynaunt soit seme etc. la autrement est car il nest tenu la dencloser mez lautre a son perill doit garder qe ses auers ne vieigneent la deins etc. issint si homme doit incloser enconter vn grand wast qe est comen et les auers del comen viegnenet a deins etc. lautre nad remedye.
 

Mez si homme achat auers in vn markett, et il eux chase parmy le streete, et ilz entrent in autre meason la il ne doit entrer la eux rechaser par ce qe lautre nest tenu a clauder son huyes etc.; et la est diuersitye parentre comen chimen et priuat car la si vn chase ses auers in tiel priuat chimen qe nad interest in ceo et ilz eschapent in terre adioynaunt par defaut denclosure il sera punisse etc. Et si ieo aye vn close parentre le close de A. dun parte et le close de B. dautre parte et ieo ay vse dencloser ceo, ore si mon close gist overt dt lez auers viegnent in mon close ieo nauera accion, mez silz passent par mon close et entrent in le close de B. il auera accion vers A. et il sera mise a son curia claudenda vers moye etc.
 

Translation of the second report:

Quick pursuit on escape in common of beasts. Quick pursuit on escape of beasts.
 

If a man have a close at D.., adjoining the highway, into which by defect of inclosure beasts which are being driven along the said highway escape, the owner can justify an immediate entry and can take them, but if the land adjoining be sowed etc., then it is different, because the owner is not obliged to inclose, but the other must at his peril guard his beasts that they go not thereon etc. Thus if a man ought to inclose against a great waste which is common, and the beasts of the common come into the close etc. he has no remedy.

But if a man buy beasts in a market, and drive them along the street, and they enter by the house of another, there he may not enter to drive them out, because the other is not obliged to inclose his house etc. And there is a difference between a common way and a private, because if one drives his beasts along such private way in which he has no interest, and they escape into adjoining land by defect of inclosure, he whose beasts they are shall be punished etc. And if I have a close between the close of A. on one side and close of B. on the other, and I have been accustomed to inclose this, if now my close lie open and beasts of A. come into my close, I shall have no action, but if they pass through my close and enter into the close of B. he will have an action against A., who will be put to his curia claudenda against me etc.
 
 

Third Report:

Deshap de bests.


Item fuit tenuz par tout le court qe si vn enchace ses auers par le haut chymyn qe ly couient deux issint garder qilz nentrent en le soil dascun aioynaunt a mesme le chimyn, et sil ne face il sera punyshe pur lour entre et depasture etc. comment qil eux freshment ensuit, sinon qe cesti a qe le soil est ad vse de closer de temps etc. parentre son soil et le haut chymyn. Mesme le ley est si iay commen en la ter A. a mez auers et B. qe ad ter aioynaunt al ter A. suffre vn hegge qe devid les deux closes destre diclose qel le dit B. ad vse de closer de temps etc. parauentur mes bestes qe ie mitte en le comen alent en la ter B. ie eux reprendra et B. anuera accion pur cest entere ne pur le depasture de mes bests. Autrement est si B. nad vse decloser etc. Ple michel viii mesme le roy.
 
 

Translation of the third report:


Of escape of beasts.


Also it was held by all the court that if one drive his beasts by the highway it is proper that he guard them lest they enter the soil of some one adjacent to the highway, and if he fail to do so he will be punished for their entrance and the destruction they do etc. however quickly he pursue them, unless that one whose soil it is has been used to inclose from time immemorial between his soil and the highway. The law is the same if I have common in the land of A. allow a hedge which divides the two closes to be open, which the said B. had been accustomed to keep closed from time immemorial. If peradventrure my beasts which I put in the common should go into the land of B. I may retake them and B. will not have an action for this entry, nor for the depasturing there of my beasts. Otherwise is it if B. has not been used to inclose etc. Plea of Michaelmas term of the eighth year of the same king.
 

RECORD

Easter Term, De Banco Roll, 835, m. 372 Kanc‘.


 


Iohanna Godfrey de Grean‘ in comitatu predicto wydowe attachiata fuit ad respondendum Richardo Godfrey de placito quare vi et armis clausum ipsius Richardi apud Grean‘ fregit et blada et herbam sua ad valenciam quadraginta solidorum ibidem nuper cresencia cum quibusdam aueriis depasta fuit, conculcauit et consumpsit et alia enormia ei intulit ad graue dampnum ipsius Richardi et contra pacemn domini regis nunc etc. Et vnde idem Richardus per Iohannem Nethersole attornatum suum queritur quod predicta Iohanna in crastino Ascensionis Domini, anno regni domini regis nunc octauo vi et armis, videlicet gladiis arcubus et sagittis clausum ipsius Richardi apud Grean'‘fregit et blada, videlicet frumentum, pisas, et vescas et herbam sua ad valenciam etc. ibidem nuper crescencia cum quilbusdam aueriis, videlicet vaccis porcis et bidentibus depasta fuit conculcauit et consumpsit et alia enormia etc. ad graue dampnum etc. et contral pacem domini regis etc. vnde dicit quod deterioratus est et dampnum habet ad valenciam viginti librarum et inde producit sectam etc.
 

Et predicta Iohanna per Willelmum Brent attornatum suum venit et defendit vim et iniuriam quando etc. et quo ad venire vi et armis seu quicquid quod est contra pacem dicti domini regis dicit quod ipsa in nullo est inde culpabilis et de hoc point se su per patriam et predictus Ricardus Godfrey similiter. Et quo ad residuum transgressionis preedicte eadem Iohanna dicit quod predictus Richardus accionem suam predictam inde versus eam habere non debet quia dicit quod locus in quo supponitur transgressionem fieri est et tempore transgressionis illius supposite fieri fuit vna acra terre, et dicit quod ipsa tempore trangressionisilliussupporsite fieri et ante fuit seisita de vno mesuagio et octo acris terre cum pertinenciss in Grean predicta in dominico suo vt de feodo quodque predictus Richardus Godfrey est et tempore transgressionis predicte supporsite fieri fuit seistus de predicta vna acra terre cum pertinenciis in dominico suo vt de feodo, quequidem vna acra terre contigue adiacet cuidam vi in Grean‘ predicta que est et a tempore quo non extat memoria fuit ducens a predictis mesuagio et octo acris terre vsque locum adaquacionis in Grean’t predicta vocatum a Wateryngplace pro omnimodis aueriis suis ibidem adaquandis; et vlterioiius eadem Iohanna dicit quod ipsa et omes illi quorum statum ipsa habet in dictis mesuagio et octis acris terre cum pertinenciis a tempore quo non extat memoria vsi fuerunt ad omnimodia aueria sua in dictis mesuagio et octo acris terre cum pertinenciis leuancia et cubancia iniuianda ab eisdem mesuagio et octo acris terre in via predicta vsque locum adaquacionis pro eisdem aueriis ibidem adaquandis, et predictus Richardus et omens illi quorum statum ipse habet in predicta vina acra terre a toto eodem tempore vsi fuerunt ad claudendum easndem acram sufficienter cum muro terreo inter predictam vnam acram terre et predictam viam et dicit quod ante tempus transtgressionis predicte supposite fieri et eodem tempore murus terreus ibidem positus pro clausura inter dictam vnam acram terre et viam predictam in diuersis partibus eiusdem muri por defectu reparacionis eiusdem dirutus et ruptus fuit, et dicit quod ante tempus trangressionis predicte supposite fieri aueria predicta in narrcione predicta specificata que tunc et continue postea fuerunt aueria ipsius Iohanne fuerunt in predictis mesuagio et octo acris terre leuancia et cubancia, et eadem Iohanna eadem aueria in eisdem cubancia et leuancia ab eisdem mesuagio et octo acris terre in via predicta vsque predictum locum adaquacionis iniuauit ad ea ibidem adaquandam etc. Vt eadem Iohanna sic iniuauit aueria illa in vai predicta eadem aueria tempore transgressionis predicte supposite fieri, per diuersas rupturas muri predicti a predicta via in dictam vnam acram terre euaserunt et blada et herbam predictam ibidem tunc crescencia depasta fuerunt conculcauerunt et comsumpserrunt, et eadem Iohanna eadem aueria tunc in eadem acra iper rupturas predictas ad tunc minime clusas recenter insecuta fuit et ea abinde fugauit prout ei bene licuit, quequidem insecucio depastus conculcacio et consumpcio bladorum et herbe sunt eedem fraccio clausi depastus conculcacio et consumpcio bladorum et herbe vnde predictus Richardus breue suum mod tulit. Et hoc parata est verificare, vnde petit iudicium si predictus Richardus accionem suam predictam inde versus eam habere seu manutenere debeat etc.
 

Et predictus Richardus non cognouit aliqua per prefatam Iohannam preallegata, dicit quod ipse per aliqua preallegata ab accione sua predicta versus Iohannam habenda precludi non debet quia dicit quod loci in quibus transgression predicta vnde idem Richardus se modo queritur facta fuit sunt et tempore transgressionis illus supposit fieri fuerunt duodecim acre marisci vocati Thorpeshoke in quibus herba predicta crescebat, et quinque acre terre quarum tres acre vocantur Bathousfeld in quibus pise et vesce predicte crescebant et due acre terre residue predictarum quinque acrarum terre iacent iuxta quendam locum vocatum le Greneway in Grean predicta in quibus duabus acris terre fumentum predictum crescebat alie a predicta vna acra terre. Et hoc paratus est verificare; unde ex quo predicta Iohanna non respondet ad trangressionem predictam factam in predictis duodecim acris marisci et quinque acris terre aliis a predicta vna acra terre etc. petit iudicium de dampna sua occasione transgressionis illius sibi abiudicari etc.
 

Et predicta Iohanna quo ad trangressionem predictam suppositam fieri in predictis duabus acris terre iacentibut iuxta dictum locum vocatum le Greneway dicipt quod ipsa in nullo est inde iculpabilis prout predictus Richardus superious versus eam queritur, et de hoc point se supper patriam, et predictus Richardus similiter; eq uo ad trangressionem predictam suppositam fieri in predictis duodecim acris marisci eadem I ohanna dicit quod predictus Richardus accionem suam predictam inde versus eam habere non debet quia dicit quod Robertus prior domus et ecclesie sancti Nicholai de Ledes in comitatu predicto ante tempus transgressionis predicte supposite fieri fuit seistus de sexaginta acris marisci cum pertinenciis in Grean‘ predicta in dominico suo vt de feodo in iure domus et ecclesie predictarum, contigue adiacentibus predictis duodecim acris marisci, et sic inde seistus in festo sancti Michaelis archangeli anno regni domini regis nunc septimo apud Grean predictam dimisit eidem Iohanne predictas sexaginta acras marisci cum pertinenciis habendas et occupandas eidem Iohanne ab eodem festo per septeim annos tunc proxime sequentes, reddendo inde annuatim prefato priori et successoribut suis durante termino predicto ad festum sancti Michaelis archangeli viginti solidos; virtute cuiuse dimissionis eadem Iohanna fuit inde possessionata tempore transgressionis predicte suppostie fieri et ante, et dicit eadem Iohanna quod predictus Richardus tempore transgressionis predicte supposite fieri et antea fuit seistus de predictis duodecim acris marisci cum pertinenciss in dominico suo vt de feodo quodque ipse et omnes illi quorum statum ipsed habet in dictis duodecim acris marisci cum pertinenciis a tempore quo non extat memoria vsi fuerunt ad faciendum et custodiendum sufficientem clausuram inter predictas sexaginta acras marisci et predictas duodecim acras marisci, videlicet cum fossato ne aueria in predictis sexaginta acris marisci existencia ab eisdem sexaginta acris marisci in dictas duodecim acras marisci existencia ab eisdem sexaginta acris marisci in dictas duodecim acras marisci pertransirent et ulterius eadem Iohanna dicit quod ante tempus transgressionis predicte supposite fieri et eodem tempore fossatum illum positum pro clausura inter dictas sexaginta acras marisci et predictas duodecim acras marisci in diuersis partibus eiusdem fassati pro defectu scustodie et reparacionis eiusdem fossati dirutum fuit et rupti=um, quodque ante tempus transgressionis predicte supposite fieri et post dimissionem predictam factam eademm Iohanna posuit aueria in narracione predicta specicata que tunc et tempore transgressionis predicte supposite fuerunt propria aueria sua in predictis sexaginta acris marisci ad de-pascendum in eisdem, quequidem aueria sic in eisdem sexaginta acris marisci posita et ibidem ante idem tempus quo etc. existencia tempore transgressionis predicte suppositee fieri, ab eisdem sexaginta acris marisci per diuersas rupturas fossati predicti pro defectu reparacionis eiusdem fossati in predictas duodecim acras cmarisci, ipsa Iohanna inuita, euserunt et herbam predictam ibidem tunc cresentem depasta fuerunt conculcauerunt et consumpserunt et eadem Iohanna eadem aueria recenter insecuta fuit et in predictas duodecim acras marisci per rupturas illas ad aueria illa ab inde fuganda intrauit et ea ab eisdem duodecim acris marisci citori modo quo potuit fugant quequidem insecucio et intracio depastus conculcacio et consumpcio herbe sunt eedem fraccio clausi et depastus conculcacio et consump[cio herbe in predictis duodecim acris marisci vnde predictus Richardus se modo queritur et hoc parata est verificare vnde petit iudicium ob predictus Richardus accionem suam predictam inde versus eam habere seu manutenere debeat etc, et quo ad transgressionem predictam suppositam fieri in predictis tribus acris terre vocatis Bachousfield‘ eadem Iohana dicit quod predictus Richardus accionem suam predictam inde versus eam habere non debet quia dicit quod predictus nonc prior et precedcessores sui quondam priores domus et ecclesie predictarum in iure domus et ecclesie illarum a tempore quo non extat memoria fuerunt seisiti de predictis sexaginta acris marisci cum pertinenciis in dominico suo vt de feodo quequidem sexaginta acre marisci contique adiacent predicte vie que est et a tempore quo non extat momoria fuit ducens ab eisdem sexaginta acris marisci vsque dictum locum adaquacionis cuiquidem vie eedem tres acre terre contique adiacent. Idemque nunc prior et predecessores sui predicti ac omenes alii easdem sexaginta acras marisci cum pertinenciis pro tempore occupantes a toto eodem tempore quo non extat memoria vsi fuerunt ad omnimoda aueria sua in predictis sexaginta acris marisci pro tem pore existencia iniuanda ab eisdem sexaginta acris marisci in via predicta cui predicte tres acre terre adiacent vsque predictum locum adaquacionis pro aueriis illis ibidem adaquanda et quod predictus Richardus fuit seisitus de predictis tribus acris terre cum pertinenciis in dominico suo vt de feodo tempore trangressionis predicti fieri supposite et ante ipseque et omnes illi quorum statum ipse habet et tempore quo etc. in predictis tribus acris terre cum pertinenciis a tempore quo non extat memoria vsi fuerunt ad faciendum et custodiendum sufficientem clausuram inter eandem viam et predictas tres acras terre, videlicet cum muro terreo ne aueria in eadem via pro tempore existencia ad eadem via in easdem tres acras terre pertransirent, et dicit ulterious eadem Iohanna quod preedictus nunc prior sic seistius de predictis sexaginta acris marisci cum pertinenciis in forma predicta in dicto festo sancti Michaelis anno septimo supradicto apud Grean predictam dimisit easdem sexaginta acras marisci cum pertinenciis eidem Iohanne ad terminuim predictum in forma predicta, virtute cuius dimissionis eadem Iohanna fuit inde possesionata tempore trangressionis predicte supporsite fieri et ante. Et dicit quod ante tempus transgressionis predicte supposite fieri et eodem tempore transgressionis illius supposite murus predictus positus pro clausura inter dictam viam et predictas tres acras terre in diuersis partibus eiusdem muri dirutus et ruptus fuit et eadem Iohanna ante tempus transgressionis predicte supposite fieri et post dimissionem illam factam possessionata de predictis sexaginta acris marisci cum pertinenciis in forma predicta et eas virtue dimissionis predicte occupans posuit aueria predicta in narracione predicta specificata que tunc et cont89nue postea fuerunt propria aueria ipsius Iohanne in predictas sexaginta acras marisci ad depascendum in eisdem et eadem aueria sic in eisdem sexaginta acris marisci existencia ab eisdem sexaginta acris marisci in via predicta verus predictum locum adaquacionis iniuauit ad ea ibidem adaquanda et ut ipsa Iohanna eadem aueria sic iniuauit aueria illa in via illa existencia tempore transgressionis predict supposit fieri per diuersas rupturas muri predicti ab eadem via in predictas tres acras terre ipsa Iohanna inuita euaserunt ac pisas et vescas predictas ibidem tunc crescentes depasti (sic) fuerunt conculcauerunt et consumpserunt et eadem Iohanna eadem queria recenter insecuta fuit et predictas tres acras terre ad ea abinde fuganda per rupturas illas tunc apertas intrauit et aueria illa ab eisdem tribus acris terre ciciori modo quo potuit fugauit ne magis dampnum ibidem facerent; que quidem intracio depastus conculcacio et consumpcio pisarum et vescarum sunt eedem fraccio clausi depastus conculcacio et consumpcio pisarum et vescarum in predictis tribus acris terre vnde predicuts Richardus se modo queritur. Et hoc parata est verificare vnde petit iudicium si predictus Richardus accionem suam predictam inde versus eam habre seu manutenere debet etc.
 

Et predictus Richardus non cognoscens aliqua per prefatam Iohannam preallegata dicit quod ipse per aliqua preallegta ab accione sua predicta de transgressione predicta facta in predictis duodecim acris marisci et tribus acris terre habenda precludi non debet quia dicit quod predicta Iohanna die et anno supradictis in narracione predicta specicatis vi et armis et de iniuria sua propria clausum ipsius Richardi apud Grean’s fregit et blada et herbam predicta ibidem nuper crescentia cum aueriis predictis depasta fuit conculcauit et consumpsit prout ipse superious versus eam queritur absque hoc quod ipse et omnes illi quorum statum ipse habet in predictis duodecim acris marisci a tempore quo non extat memoria vsi fue5runt ad faciendum siue custodiendum clausuram inter easdem duodecm acras marisci et predictas sexaginta acras marisci prout predicta Iohanna superius allegauit et absque hoc quod idem Richardus et omens illi quorum statum ipse habet in dictis tribus acris terre a tempore quo non extat memoria vsi fuerunt ad faciendum siue custodiendum clausuram inter easdem tres acras terre et predictam viam prouit predicta Iohanna superious allegauit, que omnia et singula idem Richardus paratus est verificare vnde ex quo predicta Iohanna transgressionem in predictis duodecim acris marisci et tribus acris superius congonoscens petit indicium et dampna sua occosione transgressionis illius sbi adiudicari. Et predicta Iohanna dicit quod predictus Richardus et omnes illi quorum statum ipse habet in dictis duodecim acris marisci cum pertinenciis a tempore quo non extat memoria vsi fuerunt ad faciendum et custodiendum sufficentem clausuram inter easdem duodecim acras marisciet predictas sexaginta acras marisci prout ipsa superious allegauit et de hoc point se super patriam et predictus Richardus similiter, et vlterious eadem Iohanna dicit quod predicuts Richyardus et omens illi quorum statum ipse habet in predictis tribus acris terre a tempore quo non extat memoria vsi fuerunt ad faciendum et custodiendum sufficentem clausuram inter easdem tres acras terre et predictam viam prout ipsa superius allegauit. Et de hoc eciam ponit se super patriam et predictus Ricardus similiter. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti quod venire faciat hic in octabis sancti Iohannis Baptiste vii etc. per quos etc. et qui nec etc. ad recognoscendum etc. quia tam etc.
 
 

Translation of the Record


 
 

Kent. Johanna Godfrey of Grain in the said country widow was attached to answer Richard Godfrey on a plea wherefore with force and arms she broke the close of the said Richard at Grain, and with her cattle fed upon, trod down, and consumed the crops and grass lately growing there, to the value of forty shillings, and other enormities committed to the grievous injury of the said Richard and against the peace of the lord king who know is etc. And whereupon the said Richard by John Nethersole his attorney complains that the said Johanna on the morrow of the Ascension of the Lord, in the eighth year of the reign of the lord king who now is, with force and arms, to wit, with swords, bows, and arrows, broke the close of the said Richard at Grain, and his corn, to wit, wheat, peas, and vetch, and his grass, to the value of etc. there lately growing, with certain animals, to wit, with cows, pigs, and sheep, fed upon, trod down, and consumed etc., to his grievous injury etc., and against the peace of the lord king etc., whereupon he says that he is injured and has damage to the value of twenty pounds, and thereof he produces suit etc.

And the said Johanna by William Brent her attorney comes and denies the tort and force when etc., and as for the coming with force and arms or anything that is against the peace of the lord king she says that she is in no way guilty thereof, and of this she puts herself upon the country, and the said Richard Godfrey does likewise. And as for the rest of the trespass aforesaid the same Johanna says that the said Richard ought not to have his action against her, because she says that the place where the trespass is supposed to have been committed is and was at the time the trespass was supposed to have been committed one acre of land, and she says that at the time the trespass was supposed to have been committed and before, she was seized of one messuage and eight acres of land with appurtenances in the said Grain, in her demesne as of fee, and that the said Richard Godfrey is, and was at the time the trespass was supposed to have been committed, seised of the said one acre of land with appurtenances in demesne as of fee, which one acre of land is adjacent to a certain way in Grain called a Wateryngplace for watering all kinds of animals there; and further the said Johanna says that she and all those whose estate she has in the said messuage and eight acres of land with appurtenances from out of memory were accustomed to have all kinds of beasts who were levant and couchant in the same messuage and eight acres with appurtenances go from the said messuage and eight acres along the said way, to the place of watering the said animals, and the said Richard and all whose estate he has in the said one acre of land throughout the same time were accustomed to inclose the said acre sufficiently with an earthen wall between the said acre and the said way; and she said that before the time of the trespass which is supposed to have been committed and at that same time, the earthen wall placed there for inclosure between the said acre and the said way had been broken in diverse parts and had Fallen into ruin, by reason of failure of repairs; and she says that before the time the trespass was supposed to have been committed the said beasts specified in the said count, which then and continuously thereafter were animals of the said Johanna, were levant and couchant in the said messuage and eight acres, and the said Johanna drove the said beasts levant and couchant in the same, from the same messuage and eight acres along the said way to the said watering place, in order to give them water there. And as the same Johanna drove her animals along the same way at the time the trespass is supposed to have occurred, the said beasts left the said way through the diverse breaks in the wall, and the corn and grass growing there fed upon, trod down, and consumed, and the same Johanna quickly followed the same beasts then into the said acre, going through the broken wall then very slightly inclosed, and drove them thence, as well she might; which following, feeding upon, breaking down, and consuming of corn and grass are the same breaking of close, feeding upon, treading down, and consumption of corn and grass of which the said Richard now brings his writ. And this she is prepared to prove; whereof she asks judgement and whether the said Richard ought to have and maintain his said action against her etc

And the said Richard does not acknowledge as true any of the matters alleged by the said Johanna, and says that by none of them should he be precluded from having his action against the said Johanna, because, he says the places in which the said trespass whereof the said Richard is now complaining was committed, at the time at which it was supposed to have been committed, were twelve acres of marsh called Thorpeshoke in which the said grass grew, and five acres of land, of which three were called Bathousfeld in which grew peas and vetch, and the two other acres of the five like next a certain place called the Greneway in Grain aforesaid, in which two acres corn grew-all other than the said one acre of land; and this he is prepared to prove. Whereupon since the said Johanna does not answer to the said trespass committed in the aforesaid twelve acres of march and five acres of land other than the aforesaid one acre etc. he asks judgement and that his damages be awarded him etc.
 

And the said Johanna, as for the said trespass supposed to have been committed in the said two acres lying near the said place called the Greneway, says that she is in no way guilty as the said Richard has above complained against her, and of this she places herself on the country, and the said Richard likewise. And as for the trespass supposed to have been committed in the twelve acres of march the same Johanna says that the said Richard ought not to have his said action against her thereof, because, she says, Robert prior of the house and church of St. Nicolas of Ledes in the said county before the time the said trespass is supposed to have been committed was seised of sixty acres of marsh with appurtenances in the said Grain in his demesne as of fee, in right of his house and church, immediately adjacent to the said twelve acres of marsh, and so seised thereof on the feast of ST. Michael the Archangel in the seventh year of the king who now is demised to the same Johanna at Grain thee said sixty acres of marsh, to have and to occupy from the same feast for the seven years next following, by paying thence annually to the said prior and his successors during the said term at the feast of St. Michael the Archangel twenty shillings; by virtue of which demise the same Johanna was thereof possessed at the time the trespass is supposed to have been committed; and the same Johanna says that the said Richard at the time the said trespass is said to have been committed and before was seised of the said twelve acres of marsh with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee, and that he and all those whose estate he has in the said twelve acres of marsh with appurtenances where used from time out of memory to have made and guarded a sufficient inclosure between the said sixty acres of marsh and the said twelve acres of marsh, to wit, with a dyke least beasts in the said sixty acres of marsh should pass for the sixty acres into the said twelve acres of marsh; and the same Johanna says further that before the time the trespass is supposed to have been committed and at the same time, the dyke built for inclosure between the said sixty acres of marsh and the said twelve acres of marsh was in many places, by reason of defect in the custody and repair of it, broken and ruined; and that before the time at which the trespass is supposed to have occurred and after the demise was made, the said Johanna placed her beasts specified in the said count, which then and at the time the trespass is said to have been committed were her own beasts, to depasture in the same sixty acres of marsh; which beasts so at pasture in the same sixty acres of marsh, and there before the time the trespass is supposed to have been committed and at the time, escaped from the said sixty acres by diverse breaks in the dyke due to lack of repair in the said dyke, and against the wish of Johanna, went into the said twelve acres of marsh, and fed up on the grass growing there, and trod it down, and consumed it, and the same Johanna quickly followed the same beasts and entered through the broken dyke into the said twelve acres of marsh, to drive them out, and as quickly as she could drove them from the same twelve acres of marsh, which following, and entrance into, depasturing treading down, and consumption of grass are the same breaking of close, depasturing treading down, and consumption of grass in the said twelve acres of marsh of which the said Richard now is complaining; and this she is prepared to prove whereupon she asks judgment whether the said Richard ought to have or maintain his action against her etc. And as for the trespass said to have been committed in the three acres call ? Bacthousfeld the same Johanna says that the said Richard ought not to have the said action against her thereof, because she says that the said present prior and his predecessors, once priors of the said house and church, in right of that house and church, from time out of memory were seised of the said sixty acres of marsh with appurtenances in their demesne as of fee, which sixty acres of marsh are immediately adjacent to the said way which leads and from time immemorial has led from the said sixty acres of marsh to the said place of watering, to which way the said three acres of land are immediately adjacent. And the prior who now is and his predecessors and all others occupying the same sixty acres of marsh with appurtenances at any time from time immemorial were accustomed to go with all sorts of beasts of theirs which were in the said sixty acres, also the aforesaid way to which the three acres of land are adjacent to the said place of watering, in order to water their cattle there, and that the said Richard was seised of the said three acres of land with appurtenances in his demesne as of fee at the time the trespass is supposed to have been committed, and before, and he and all those whose estate he has in the said three acres of land with appurtenances at the time etc, from time out of memory were accustomed to make and guard a sufficient inclosure between the said way and the said three acres, to wit, with a mound of earth, least cattle at any time on the said way might cross from the said way into the said three acres; and the same Johanna says further that the prior who now is, being so seised of the said sixty acres of marsh with appurtenances in the form aforesaid, on the said feast of St. Michael in the said seventh year, at Grain, demised the said sixty acres of marsh with appurtenances to the same Johanna for the said term in the said manner, by virtue of which demise the same Johanna was thereof possessed at the time the trespass is supposed to have been committed, and before. And she says that before the trespass is supposed to have been committed, and at the time of the supposed trespass, the said wall placed for inclosure between the said way and the said three acres of land was broken and ruined in divers places, and the same Johanna at the time the trespass is supposed to have been committed, and after the demise was made, being in possession of the said sixty acres of marsh with appurtenances in the manner aforesaid, and occupying them by virtue of the said demise, placed her cattle specified above in the count which then and continuously thereafter were her own cattle, in the said sixty acres of marsh to depasture in the same, and the said cattle so placed in the said sixty acres of marsh she drove from the said sixty acres of marsh along the aforesaid way towards the place of watering, to water them there; and as the said Johanna was driving the said cattle along the say way at the time the trespass is said to have been committed, the against her excepted through the breaks in the said wall from the said way into the said three acres of land and fed upon the peas and vetch there growing, and trod them down and consumed them, and the same Johanna quickly pursued the same beasts and entered into the said three acres of land through the broken opening in order to drive them thence; and those beasts as quickly as she could she drove forth from the said three acres lest they should do greater damage there; which entrance, depasturing, treading down, and consumption of peas and vetch are the same breaking of close, depasturing, treading down, and consumption of peas and vetch in the said three acres of which the said Richard is now complaining. And this she is prepared to prove; whereupon she asks judgment whether the said Richard ought to have or maintain his said action thereof against her etc.
 

And the said Richard not acknowledging any of the matter so alleged by the said Johanna says that by any of the matters alleged, for his said action of trespass committed in the said twelve acres of marsh and three acres of land he ought not to be precluded, because he says that the said Johanna, in the day and year specified above in the count, with force and arms and of her own tort, broke the close of the said Richard at Grain, and corn and grass lately growing there with her beasts depasture, trod down, and consumed, as he himself above complains, without this that he or any others whose estate he has in the said twelve acres of marsh were accustomed from time out of memory to make or maintain that close between the said twelve acres of marsh and the said sixty acres of marsh as the said Johanna has alleged above; and without this that the said Richard and those whose estate he has in the said three acres of land, from time out of memory were accustomed to make or maintain inclosure between the said three acres of land and the said way, as the said Johanna has alleged above; all and every one of which statements Richard is prepared to prove. Whereupon since the same Johanna recognized her trespass in the said twelve acres of marsh and three acres of land as above, he asks judgment, and that his damages by reason of the said trespass be awarded him. And the said Johanna says that the said Richard and all those whose estate he has in the said twelve acres of marsh with appurtenance s from time out of memory have been accustomed to make and maintain sufficient inclosure between the said twelve acres of marsh and the said sixty acres of marsh, as she half has above alleged, and of this she puts herself on the country, and the said Richard does likewise. And further the same Johanna says that the said Richard and all those whose estate he has in the said three acres of land from time out of memory were accustomed to make and maintain sufficient inclosure between the same three acres and the said way, as she herself has alleged above, and thereof she puts herself upon the country and the said Richard similarly. Therefore the sheriff is commanded to make to come her in the octave of St. John Baptist twelve etc., through whom etc., and who neither etc., to make recognition etc., because as well etc.

[note: in other words, 12 jurors are to be called by the sheriff to decide the matter]
 
 

Source: Year Books of Edward IV: 10 Edward IV. And 49 Henry VI., A.D. 1470 (N. Neilson ed. 1931).