Folios: 151v-154v. Bedfordshire. Record of a plea concerning the manor of Sutton...

Folios: 151v-154v. Bedfordshire. Record of a plea concerning the manor of Sutton

First party: Henry, earl of Derby [Henry of Bolingbroke].

Second party: Elizabeth, late the wife of John de Neville of Raby, knight.

Place or subject: Whereas a fine had been levied in the court of Edward II in the quindene of Trinity, 8 Edw. II, between Alice la Latymer [Latimer], querent, and John de Kynardeseye, clerk, deforciant, concerning the manor of Sutton, for which a plea of covenant was summoned in court, namely that Alice acknowledged the manor to be John’s right as of her gift, and for this concord John had given her the manor, to hold of the king and his heirs for life, and that after her death the manor was to remain entirely to Nicholas le Latymer and his heirs in tail, and if he dies without heirs in tail, then to Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and his heirs, now, by the report of Henry, earl of Derby, the king hears that Alice and Nicholas are dead without heirs in tail, that Thomas, late earl of Lancaster, has also died, and that Elizabeth, formerly the wife of John de Neville of Raby, has entered the manor and holds it contrary to the form of the fine. The sheriff is ordered to cause her to come on the octave of Trinity to show why that manor ought not remain to the earl of Derby, as Thomas’s kinsman and heir, as Nicholas died without heirs in tail. Earl Henry came by William Armeston, his attorney, and Elizabeth by William Wakefeld. Earl Henry seeks execution against Elizabeth. She seeks that he shows and declares to the court how he is the kinsman and heir of Earl Thomas, protests that she does not acknowledge the manor was held of Edward II, and that Earl Henry ought not to have execution of that manor by virtue of the fine against her, because a long time before that fine was levied Gilbert, son of Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, was seised of the manors of Sutton and Potton by Bykeleswade [Biggleswade] in his demesne as of fee, and gave them to William le Latymer, her ancestor, who afterwards died seised thereof. [Manorial descent given] She further says that a fine levied by William le Latymer, the great-grandfather, was extinct and nullified, and seeks judgement as to whether Earl Henry ought to have execution by virtue thereof. He protests that he does not acknowledge Elizabeth is kinswoman and heir of William le Latymer, the great-great-grandfather, or that William entered into the manor of Sutton. He says that what she supposes to be the manor of Potton is parcel of the manor of Sutton and was at the time of the levying of that fine, and on the day on the completion of this writ of scire facias, and that he ought not to be excluded from having the execution of the manor of Sutton, because a long time before Gilbert, son of Richard had anything in the manor of Sutton, Robert Braybrok was seised thereof and of other manors, lands and tenements in his demesne as of fee. [Descent given] By collusion and assent between William and Nicholas le Latymer and others named, the assize was taken by which William recovered £1,000 in damages due to that disseisin, and he later released those damages. He seeks judgement if, by the entry of William, son of William le Latymer, the great grandfather, into the manor of Sutton after that fine had been levied, or by William’s recovery in that assize, the same fine ought to be extinguished or nullified. Elizabeth protests that she does not acknowledge Robert de Braybrok died seised of the manor of Sutton, that the manor and other lands and tenements descended to Alice and Christiana, or that the partition should have been made between them. [Further details given] She seeks judgement whether Earl Henry ought to have execution of the manor of Sutton by virtue of that fine. A day is given to the parties by their attorneys in the octave of Michaelmas. On which day both came by their attorneys. Earl Henry says that, whereas Elizabeth alleges Alice had nothing in the manor of Sutton except as wife of William le Latymer, the great-great grandfather, she was seised thereof in her demesne as of fee. Elizabeth says that William le Latymer, the great-great grandfather, was seised of the manor of Sutton in his demesne as of fee at the time of his death without Alice being seised or having anything therein, except as wife of William the great-great grandfather. Both seek judgement. Both seek inquiry by the country. Therefore the sheriff is ordered to cause twelve men etc. to come here in the octave of Martinmas upon the prayer of both parties to give judgement etc. Afterwards, the process being continued between the parties, it was placed in respite here until this day, namely one month after Easter, 15 Ric. II. Now, on this day, Earl Henry comes by his attorney. Elizabeth, being solemnly exacted, has not come, but appeared at another time, as is clear in the same record. Therefore Earl Henry should have execution against Elizabeth of the manor of Sutton by default.

County: Bedfordshire.

One month after Easter, 15 Ric II.